• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The contributions of Religion to sciences

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
So theists never do this but atheists do?

These are not immutable laws, I'm talking about the philosophy of each position and gave examples of where they are applied.

George Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion' never received a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and in fact his name remains in relative obscurity.



Theism does the same, only that its default truth is the opposite of that of atheism.

Absolutely not, theism is a positive assertion, I believe in God and am willing to defend that belief on it's own merits.

If I were to take the same stance as an atheist, I could frame my belief in God as merely a disbelief in naturalism- an a-naturalist- therefore the obvious alternative is the default truth until proven otherwise!

Works both ways- the labels do not change our beliefs

That is not a part of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in God and nothing more. Where do you get this from? Stereotypes? You don't think an atheist can be humble?

You're missing the point though, the fundamental difference is that atheism has an inherent added interest in a theory being complete explanation of something- because it would make God redundant. 'making God redundant' was an explicit feature of steady state according to Hoyle, Big Crunch according to Hawking, and evolution according to Dawkins-
their rationale not mine.

Classical physics carried the same implication for many- seamless natural cogs leaving no room for God. While deeper 'unpredictable mysterious forces' were the realm of the 'ignorant masses'. No coincidence that Planck was a noted skeptic of atheism

The BB was first considered 'religious psuedoscience' for the same reason, static universe models were much simpler, more comprehensive, God refuting explanations

Theism does not have this inherent desire to close the case on the most convenient suspect, 'Nature is the Executor of God's laws' The theist is free to follow science where it leads, over the next hurdle,
the atheist horse is more apt to stopping and throwing the rider (at the risk of stretching the analogy!)
 
Last edited:

Jumi

Well-Known Member
We agree, science agrees, unambiguous observation agrees, but the EPA, IPCC, Al Gore and Leonardo di Caprio do not, so you're on the right side already!
I haven't taken sides here to be honest.

How often have you heard this abbreviated to simple 'carbon pollution' by which Earth is populated by pollution based life forms and pollution breathing plants.
In my language / country we don't use such a term since all people know some chemistry here and I don't follow climate debate in English so not very often. In general the level public debate on science topics is below what interests me.

I think the whole point of science is not having to take anybody's word for it, would you not agree?
I would and agree. This is the great thing about science, it's about what can be observed. Interpretation of data is different. You would have to be quite educated in a topic to be able to interpret them.

Especially in such a politically charged topic.
Part of the reason I'm not interested in the topic is the politics over science. Big money talking on both sides.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Religions don't contribute a single things to science, like from scriptures or religious traditions.

Some religious people with the right education can and have contribute to science.

Religious scriptures and religious teachings have only provided faith-based myths, fear, ignorance and superstition.

When there was a golden age of Islam, in which the empire was at the height of learning, the scientific discoveries and rediscoveries were the direct results of individual Muslims, not because of Islam, and certainly not because of the Qur'an or related literature.

And a large parts of Muslims spearheading the charge in science, mathematics, in technology, medicines and astronomy, as well as in architecture, is because of new non-Arab converts from the former Byzantine Syria and Egypt and former Sassanid Persia.

The Dark Ages may have occurred in Western Europe that began in 476 CE, but the Eastern Roman Empire and the Middle East, especially Persia didn't undergo the Dark Ages in the 2nd half of 1st millennium CE.

When Syrians and Persians converted to Islam, they had inherited the educations of the previous empires. A lot of scientific and mathematical literature were written in Greek and Iranian, and it is known that some of muslim mathematicians and scientists to have had these translated into Arabic, so some of them were really "rediscoveries", not new discoveries.

But one thing for certain, whether Muslims made new discoveries or made new advances to old discoveries, the Qur'an had nothing to do with science or these discoveries.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
George Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion' never received a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and in fact his name remains in relative obscurity.

But Lemaître alone didn't contribute to the Big Bang theory. It was the work of Lemaître, plus Alexander Friedmann, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman have all played their parts with BB.

Lemaître knew nothing about Big Bang nucleosynthesis or BBN (by Gomow in 1946), or the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation ( predicted and theorised by Alpher and Herman in 1948, but CMB wasn't confirmed until 1964). The BBN is what show us how energies formed subatomic particles and nuclei, and how nuclei and subatomic particles formed the earliest atoms or elements.

Also it was Friedmann who first predicted and theorised the "expanding universe" in 1922, before Lemaître's 1927 hypothesis of the primeval atom. And it was Friedmann's governing equation used in the BB. It was Hubble who saw that galaxies were moving away from each other, that can be observed by their red-shifts. And it is Einstein's General Relativity that provided the framework for the Big Bang cosmology.

But it was Gamow again, who not only contributed to BBN, but combined the equations of Friedmann, Lemaître and Einstein together into a revised version of the expanding universe or Big Bang.

What we have today, the current theory come more from Gamow's version than from Lemaître's original hypothesis. So from what I can see, Gamow's version to the theory was what gave us the solid knowledge of cosmology we have today.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
What is the point? And, considering Science means "to know" then many things of the past could be called early versions of science and science knowledge.
Huh?

science
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Cooling was the big scare when I went to school- I lived through the change to warming and back to flat again
No it wasn't. It was a musing in a Time magazine article.

And it's been more than a decade - even this el Nino didn't top 1998 temps.. but more than that
Someone else in the thread has addressed this.


U.S. tornado numbers among lowest in recorded history in 2014

it's been nearly a decade since a Hurricane made landfall in the US..

Arctic ice rebounding

The great lakes after being at low levels from 'global warming' are now back above average
You know it's about GLOBAL warming, right, not US warming?
this is very troubling, not only does global warming cause record cold, snow, drought, flood, earthquakes,
volcanoes - but something far more terrifying:

Boring weather!

A recently leaked preview of the next IPCC report summary:

"Our latest studies now reveal that the planet is experiencing a period of unremarkable weather not seen for 900 million years. Computer simulations clearly show we are poised on a tipping point, beyond which we will trigger a runaway feedback loop of ever more mind numbingly boring weather, interesting weather may be just a fond memory by 2020.
Regions already suffering from boredom will be hardest hit, we must act now to save future generations from catastrophic climate tedium"
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
These are not immutable laws, I'm talking about the philosophy of each position and gave examples of where they are applied.
"Intellectual superiority, the constant urge to claim the victory of a complete final explanation, and self glory" are not a part of the philosophy of atheism.
George Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion' never received a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and in fact his name remains in relative obscurity.
And that has what to do with theism and atheism fundamentally?
Absolutely not, theism is a positive assertion, I believe in God and am willing to defend that belief on it's own merits.

If I were to take the same stance as an atheist, I could frame my belief in God as merely a disbelief in naturalism- an a-naturalist- therefore the obvious alternative is the default truth until proven otherwise!

Works both ways- the labels do not change our beliefs
Apparently I misunderstood what you meant by "default explanation". I thought by that you meant something which was simply assumed to be true. There is no such thing as a default explanation for the Universe. Atheism is not an explanation for anything anyway. It's just a belief stance. It does not claim any explanation for the Universe's origin.
You're missing the point though, the fundamental difference is that atheism has an inherent added interest in a theory being complete explanation of something- because it would make God redundant.
And theism has an inherent added interest in rejecting theories that could potentially make God redundant.
'making God redundant' was an explicit feature of steady state according to Hoyle, Big Crunch according to Hawking, and evolution according to Dawkins-
I strongly doubt that the Big Crunch idea was invented to get rid of God. Can you give me a quote from whoever formulated it? Evolutionary theory was not created to make God redundant. Given that Darwin was a theist when he came up with it, that makes no sense.
their rationale not mine.
Then start using your own rationale instead of theirs.
Classical physics carried the same implication for many- seamless natural cogs leaving no room for God. While deeper 'unpredictable mysterious forces' were the realm of the 'ignorant masses'. No coincidence that Planck was a noted skeptic of atheism

The BB was first considered 'religious psuedoscience' for the same reason, static universe models were much simpler, more comprehensive, God refuting explanations
Yes, you said these same things dozens of times in thread after thread. The opinions of a few atheists doesn't represent atheism as a whole any more than the opinions of a few theists represent theism as a whole.
Theism does not have this inherent desire to close the case on the most convenient suspect, 'Nature is the Executor of God's laws' The theist is free to follow science where it leads, over the next hurdle,
It does have an inherent desire to make sure there is room for a deity to act outside of the theories. If the Universe did come about naturally, theism would be biased against that explanation, for example.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You are right of course, it was an unfair comparison- astrology and climatology obviously operate on completely different levels of scientific integrity;

Astrologers do not accept a penny of political sponsorship, they are not paid to deliver any specific opinion. My apologies to any astrologers I may have offended
Where do I find scientifically rigorous, peer reviewed papers on the subject of astrology?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I agree in theory, but in practice as you say- is there any such thing as a true agnostic?

So between the two positions:

one acknowledges faith, belief, the humility of studying a creation to the glory of it's creator, an inherently superior intellect to our own. Not for our own pride, book sales, awards. And so always willing to permit the possibility that we are fundamentally wrong, that there is MORE than meets the eye, something we don't yet understand.

The other by definition rejects the acknowledgment of belief in its own conclusion, rather assumes a default truth, intellectual superiority, the constant urge to claim the victory of a complete final explanation, and self glory.


I don't think there is much competition re. the more scientific approach here, and we have seen them compete on science's greatest playing fields; static universes v big bang, classical physics v QM

atheism v science
Both of these are utterly misleading and ridiculous explanations for both groups.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
We agree, science agrees, unambiguous observation agrees, but the EPA, IPCC, Al Gore and Leonardo di Caprio do not, so you're on the right side already!

The EPA formally declared carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant! The very thing that makes Earth green.

If being a greenhouse gas is what qualifies this, then H2O is a far greater and more threatening pollutant- since it is by far the greatest driver of the GH effect and primary driver of global warming computer sims.

How often have you heard this abbreviated to simple 'carbon pollution' by which Earth is populated by pollution based life forms and pollution breathing plants.

It's difficult to think of anything further from being a pollutant, than 2 extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air. Plants and life in general thrived under far higher levels of this 'pollution'
The Ordovician ice age had 10 times todays CO2 levels




I think the whole point of science is not having to take anybody's word for it, would you not agree?
Especially in such a politically charged topic. Look at the science itself, or lack thereof.

There are all kinds of conceptually mind boggling scientific truths which can be verified scientifically, no such thing for global warming, ghosts or astrology.
We only have the word of climastrologers, paranormal investigators and astrologers- all 'experts' in their fields after all!
The main difference being that the latter two do not accept political funding
I can't seem to find this declaration. Do you know where I can find it?
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is the great thing about science, it's about what can be observed.
Generally speaking, it never is. I would say rather that it is about what observations (measurements) can tell us about what is. We can no more observe intelligence quotients than quarks, nouns than neutrinos, etc. In the social & behavioral sciences as well as some others (psychiatry, neuroscience, etc.), generally speaking what we attempt to "observe" is defined into existence in a way we hope can be sufficiently defined by measurements such that we can say something about a real phenomenon. In the physics of the fundamental constituents that make up all that exists, we generally regard physical theories as operational, predictive frameworks that don't explain much (if anything) actually "physical" and that cannot, even in principle, do so. I was reviewing a (mostly) introductory text on quantum mechanics recently, and so a particular quotation from it is more readily brought to mind by this topic:
"We must be careful when we talk of what is 'really' happening in QM. Because QM is so far removed from everyday experience, there is no 'really.'"
Michelsen, E. L. (2014). Quirky Quantum Concepts: Physical, Conceptual, Geometric, and Pictorial Physics that Didn’t Fit in Your Textbook. Springer.

The foundations of particle physics is something (actually, "things"), called quantum field theory. It began with quantum electrodynamics, the first attempt to make QM compatible with special relativity. QED, like quantum field theory more generally, is a mathematical derivation (that is, "theories" are constructed using solutions to mathematical issues resulting from the abstract combinations of different theories, such as QM and SR, and they are tested using the mathematical framework required to interpret the results of any and all experiments). "Particles" are often known only as additions to some equation that makes it work and are explicitly denied the ontological status as is granted to e.g., the flavors and colors of quarks (they are even called "virtual"). Those that aren't mere mathematical "entities" that somehow interact with physical reality are nonetheless mathematical abstractions because they are extensions of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is essential a mechanism for predicting experimental outcomes, and the systems in quantum mechanics have no known actual realizations. The mathematical extensions (e.g., particle physics) are even more removed from "reality".

The great thing about science is that it relies on the application of logical analyses to observations, not that it is about what can be observed (as it isn't, and if it were this wouldn't be particularly interesting, as observations have been part of human experience for many tens of thousands of years, yet science emerged a few centuries ago in a particular place and time).
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
What I meant is in the end science relies on observation, not that it's just observation and measurement. What can't be observed isn't going to make it to logical analysis.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What I meant is in the end science relies on observation
In that case I would say you are absolutely and (more importantly) fundamentally right. The logical framework necessary for science arose some ~2,500 years ago. It took over another two millennia for science to actually emerge, precisely because science requires and concerns observations (measurements), not just analytic reasoning/logical analyses.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's still someone's opinion on how they read the evidence though. that is why some scientists did not agree.
Evidence has to be interpreted. When we do so, we take on board our own ideas and world view.
That depends as some areas have overwhelming evidence to support them but many others don't. The fact that we are in a warming trend over the last century has overwhelming evidence to indicate that its true, but finding the "smoking gun" has taken much longer, but even that is no longer controversial in that CO2 & methane levels are higher than at any time in recorded history, and it's been known for a long time what they can do to atmospheric temps. The only opposition to both these nowadays tends to come from political sources and also some who simply are not familiar with the science on this.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not according to the press for the last ten years where I have heard many times that it is cooling.
Then that press simply is wrong.

If you have doubts about this, check the websites of NOAA, NASA, the NSA, Scientific American, etc., on this. Even Wikipedia on "global warming" will give you plenty of data plus links to scientific studies.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Then that press simply is wrong.

If you have doubts about this, check the websites of NOAA, NASA, the NSA, Scientific American, etc., on this. Even Wikipedia on "global warming" will give you plenty of data plus links to scientific studies.
Why in England now do they then call it Climate Change and not Global Warming? Why change the title? Why not mention how it is still rising?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Why in England now do they then call it Climate Change and not Global Warming? Why change the title? Why not mention how it is still rising?
It is still rising if you'd bother to check out the sources I cited, and some do prefer using the p.c. "climate change" terminology.

Again, why don't you check out these sources or at least the Wikipedia article on "global warming".
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
The biggest contribution to science from religion was the notion of laws that govern the cosmos. Science simply dropped the idea of a Lawgiver, and kept the Laws. Here's how it happened:

 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Why in England now do they then call it Climate Change and not Global Warming? Why change the title? Why not mention how it is still rising?
Both terms are used.

Global warming is used to refer to the earth's warming surface temperatures, while climate change is used to refer to the changes (side effects) that will occur as a result of global warming.

______________________________________________________________
“Global warming” refers to the long-term warming of the planet. Global temperature shows a well-documented rise since the early 20th century and most notably since the late 1970s. Worldwide, since 1880 the average surface temperature has gone up by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), relative to the mid-20th-century baseline (of 1951-1980).

“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic, and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of the warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air. The terms “global warming” and “climate change” are sometimes used interchangeably, but strictly they refer to slightly different things."
http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2010/finalwebsite/background/globalwarming/definition.html
 
Top