The purpose of science

[Aegis]

@SS: I wasn't making any point towards eating from the tree, just the fact that once they ate from the tree, God lost a bit of his control over both Adam and Eve because they became aware of the evils of the world. Tell me this, what is easier to control? A self-aware, intelligent person? Or one lacking knowledge of the world around them? It is the very basis of the Old Testament, and even somewhat into the New Testament. In fact, all religion has brought up a belief of knowledge being a dangerous thing. during the Spanish inquistition, the Christian Spainards burnt the great Aztec Library, becuase it was different from what they beleived, and it was what "God" told them to do. Another example was the Scopes Monkey Trial. Scopes was persucuted because he was teaching Darwin's theory of Evolution. He was doing nothing against religion, he was just broadening the childrens knowledge. Was he trying to convert them? No! He was Christian himself, but he was also a scholar, and thus recognized the line. It was the town, and church that convicted him of swaying the minds of young people. To make matters worse, every bit of scientific evidence was deemed irrelevant towards the trial, because the judge of a devot Christian. these are all fanatics, and they are the scary ones. If you read through the book carefully, and take it apart, things like this become apparent. It's alright to hold faith in God, I just think that when people follow the words of the bible, they are the ones that become the fanatics, and are the ones that cause trouble.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Aegis
@SS: I wasn't making any point towards eating from the tree, just the fact that once they ate from the tree, God lost a bit of his control over both Adam and Eve because they became aware of the evils of the world. Tell me this, what is easier to control? A self-aware, intelligent person? Or one lacking knowledge of the world around them? It is the very basis of the Old Testament, and even somewhat into the New Testament. In fact, all religion has brought up a belief of knowledge being a dangerous thing. during the Spanish inquistition, the Christian Spainards burnt the great Aztec Library, becuase it was different from what they beleived, and it was what "God" told them to do. Another example was the Scopes Monkey Trial. Scopes was persucuted because he was teaching Darwin's theory of Evolution. He was doing nothing against religion, he was just broadening the childrens knowledge. Was he trying to convert them? No! He was Christian himself, but he was also a scholar, and thus recognized the line. It was the town, and church that convicted him of swaying the minds of young people. To make matters worse, every bit of scientific evidence was deemed irrelevant towards the trial, because the judge of a devot Christian. these are all fanatics, and they are the scary ones. If you read through the book carefully, and take it apart, things like this become apparent. It's alright to hold faith in God, I just think that when people follow the words of the bible, they are the ones that become the fanatics, and are the ones that cause trouble.

IIRC, you're an athiest, so you'll of course view it differently; but these people you've alluded to were not firm in their beliefs and thus allowed satan to twist their views.

As to the Bible, I follow the words of the Bible, but I am not a fanatic. I do not believe in evolution, but neither has that been proven true. The Roman Catholic Church of the Dark Ages is one of the most obvious examples of fanaticism at its worse. I believe I listed Galileo as an example before. However, times change. Back then, the church didn't allow people to read the Bible. That's why it was such an extraordinary thing when the Bible was first translated into English. Now, anyone can get a copy of the Bible without even having to pay for it. Many churches will give you a Bible free of charge if you ask for one. The truths of the Bible are there for anyone and everyone to read. People do not have to rely on "Priests" to tell them what the Bible says. They can learn it for themselves. The Bible does not tell us to not learn. People tell us to not learn. Those people fear that if we learn, we might learn that they are not as sure about what they're talking about as they want us to think they are.

All this has made me thirsty. I'm headin' over to Bloodstalker's Tavern of Neutrality to get a drink while I look for some topics to spam.

[Dottie]

I agree with everything der Moench have said so far except the distribution of science.

Imo the risk that someone abuse knowledge is less if the knowledge is widespread. This makes it possible for a public debat on the matter, and a depate on how knowledge should be used.

If however the knowledge is in the hand of a few, who see themselfs as defenders of humanity, things can get very bad.

Its is also more likely that the knowledge is put to good use or improved in some way if more people have acces to it.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Dottie
If however the knowledge is in the hand of a few, who see themselfs as defenders of humanity, things can get very bad.

This is exactly the type of thing that could easily result in a "Roman Catholic" Science, bringing about a new Dark Age. I see too many parallels in science and religion to be able to quantify them as two seperate, completely individual things.

[Word]

As always here's my opinion:

I believe religion is a quick solution to analyzing the world and the unknown. Take the ancient Greeks and their mythology. They have a whole class of myhts devoted to explaining why things are the way they are in the world.

For example: Perseus after killing medusa flies upon his sandals towards the Titan Atlas. Perseus requests the gift of one of Atlas' golden apples. Atlas refuses and Perseus pulls out the head of Medusa and Atlas changes into mountains, the Atlas range to be specific.

Even in more modern religions such as christianity, the Bible contains ecological tales. Such as Noah's ark, the creation of the world, and others.

All religions have this ecological myth while also explaining the hope for the future people call faith. Faith in my mind is the trust in your religion that your deity will save you when needed such as at death.
Science in my mind is the product of people who do sceptical(sp?) of these ecological myths and wish to find proof of their truth or falsity.

[AbysmalNature]

I think that religion is a just a outdated way of explaining things about the universe, and that as time goes on it will lose any power it has over people, of course new pseudoscience derived religions will probably come up, but the age of the ancient religions are going away.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by AbysmalNature
I think that religion is a just a outdated way of explaining things about the universe, and that as time goes on it will lose any power it has over people, of course new pseudoscience derived religions will probably come up, but the age of the ancient religions are going away.

Hmm...really? What gives you that idea? These figures may not be totally accurate, but last I heard(on Friday) was that out of the 6 billion people in the world, 2 billion are Christian, 1 billion are Muslim, and 800,000 are Hindu. That's 3.8 billion people right there, more than half the population of Earth and only 3 of the religions on Earth.

[AbysmalNature]

Ahh but how many of them really believe in their religion as opposed to merely going through the motions, how many people routinely believe in science as opposed to religion, in terms of medicine and planes and many other things directly derived from science. Note I did not say religion would go away just that the old religions would die out, or as I think of it adapt to changing scientific thought. There is a difference between science and religion, science can be proven, and it can be constantly changed to fit new information, whereas religion generally can not change the belief structure to correspond to new data, also relgion makes the distinction of saying it has the truth, science makes no such distinction. I would say I don't want a argument but who am I kidding I always love a good argument, but those are just my thoughts I could be wrong.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by AbysmalNature
Ahh but how many of them really believe in their religion as opposed to merely going through the motions, how many people routinely believe in science as opposed to religion, in terms of medicine and planes and many other things directly derived from science. Note I did not say religion would go away just that the old religions would die out, or as I think of it adapt to changing scientific thought. There is a difference between science and religion, science can be proven, and it can be constantly changed to fit new information, whereas religion generally can not change the belief structure to correspond to new data, also relgion makes the distinction of saying it has the truth, science makes no such distinction. I would say I don't want a argument but who am I kidding I always love a good argument, but those are just my thoughts I could be wrong.

I was about to say that you, and those who argue that religion and science are seperate things, are wrong, but I realized something. Using the word "religion" is too broad for this. Some religions, such as Greek Mythology, are gone and are obviously false. And yes, science can support that. Religion is annoying. Personally, I don't really like religion. Only fellow believers will have a chance of really comprehending what I'm saying right now, though, so there's really no reason to say it. Not even any real reason for me to respond anymore to this topic either, though that rarely stops me.

[AbysmalNature]

Who is to say the Greek gods weren't more correct then the christians, or maybe the Egyptians were right, they did come before Christianity or judaism, or Islam, People are funny screwed up creatures, and their beliefs will constantly change, who is to say that Christianity or Judaism or Islam will not also be relegated to the dustbin of history, would that then make those relgions invalid or are all faiths correct. Incidently I do not say that those who believe in such faiths are inherently wrong, I just allow for the possibility in them being wrong not that they do not have any validity, Personally I believe in infinity, eternity, and believe that anything everything is ecompassed no matter what silly beliefs we come up with, God might exist god might not,if god does not exist now then god will exist or as existed, or existing right now, but having faith is irrrelevent because God will exist or not exist whether or not we have faith or not.

Incidently am I the only one who wonders why he is so up late, when he should probably be sleeping, or is it just me?

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by AbysmalNature
Who is to say the Greek gods weren't more correct then the christians, or maybe the Egyptians were right, they did come before Christianity or judaism, or Islam, People are funny screwed up creatures, and their beliefs will constantly change, who is to say that Christianity or Judaism or Islam will not also be relegated to the dustbin of history, would that then make those relgions invalid or are all faiths correct. Incidently I do not say that those who believe in such faiths are inherently wrong, I just allow for the possibility in them being wrong not that they do not have any validity, Personally I believe in infinity, eternity, and believe that anything everything is ecompassed no matter what silly beliefs we come up with, God might exist god might not,if god does not exist now then god will exist or as existed, or existing right now, but having faith is irrrelevent because God will exist or not exist whether or not we have faith or not.

Religion is bad. Me no like that word. Religion is annoying(makes me wonder why I'm taking a World Religions class this semester). I am a Christian. I am a [amateur(sp?)] scientist. I'm also getting tired and probably not making any sense, though there might be some people around here who understand what I'm saying.

Incidently am I the only one who wonders why he is so up late, when he should probably be sleeping, or is it just me?

Sleep? What's that?

[Nightmare]

AbysmalNature mirrors my point of view on this, but I'm scared of SS, so I'll just fence-sit...

For anyone who's interested, read Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton for an opinion on where science sits in the modern world.

[Georgi]

Disclaimer: if this doesn't make sense, it's because I don't really know anything

Originally posted by der Moench:
IMO reality is truth, and by percieving the world objectively, we can find truth. You say we have faith that our perceptions are right - yes, to an extent. But perception may be fooled, and it is the task of science to look more deeply than surface perceptions, and come to understand the universe as a whole, integrated, logical, and non-contradictory whole.

But science puts its faith in the belief that there is an objective reality beyond that which we can perceive. By definition, it's not measurable, because even science can only measure what we perceive. Faith in scientific method was characteristic of the modern age - a postmodernist might argue that there's no such thing as a single objective reality, that there is no pattern or law to the universe; that the notion of scientific knowledge is bankrupt. (I'm not saying I think that - just playing devil's advocate )

Originally posted by AbysmalNature:
Note I did not say religion would go away just that the old religions would die out, or as I think of it adapt to changing scientific thought. There is a difference between science and religion, science can be proven, and it can be constantly changed to fit new information, whereas religion generally can not change the belief structure to correspond to new data

But "proof" only exists on the basis of a theory of what counts as 'fact'. Let's say you do an experiment to try and prove a theory, and the results are anomalous. To account for the anomalies, you have two options: you can modify your theory, or you can modify your definition of factuality so that the anomalies don't count. There isn't necessarily any objective criteria that defines which of those you choose. It could be based on how entrenched certain beliefs are in your brain (the infallibility of scientific method, for instance), or simply aesthetic preference, or probably many other things.

Re. religion, I think you are contradicting yourself by saying that religion is inflexible, but then saying that it has changed. I think the latter is more accurate - religion changes in order to better accommodate society. I don't think religion and science are diametrically opposed, but for religion to survive, it has to adapt - it has done that, and will probably continue to do so.

From a historical perspective, there isn't a clear-cut difference between ancient science and religion. The earliest healers were often spiritual leaders as well. Healing was often a combination of ritual and medicinal practices. In the ancient Near East, astrology was the science par excellence, though today we would consider it (if we consider it at all ) as spiritual rather than scientific.

[Ned Flanders]

by georgi
But "proof" only exists on the basis of a theory of what counts as 'fact'. Let's say you do an experiment to try and prove a theory, and the results are anomalous. To account for the anomalies, you have two options: you can modify your theory, or you can modify your definition of factuality so that the anomalies don't count. There isn't necessarily any objective criteria that defines which of those you choose. It could be based on how entrenched certain beliefs are in your brain (the infallibility of scientific method, for instance), or simply aesthetic preference, or probably many other things.

How many times would one repeat the experiment to test these anomalies? If the anomalies continue to occur, wouldn't the only recourse be to modify the theory. I don't see how one can modify the facts (or definition of factuality) to discredit the anomalies. Please elaborate; perhpas I'm just dense and am not following you.

What infallibility exists in the scientific method? One observes, thinks, and defines a hypothesis. From this abstract one moves to a method including experimentation to test these hypotheses. The conclusions of the experiments may answer some questions but inevitably the hypothesis continues to be molded yielding further experimentation.

[AbysmalNature]

Religion rarely changes to correspond to new information, it exists to perpetuate itself, sure religion does change to correspond to new information. I will give a example of this the Catholic Church relatively recently in 1990s or something came out and said that Galileo originally right but this was only after hundreds of years of stalling. Usually religions die out when new information comes along, this is why new religions come about because the old religions no longer can adapt to changing circumstances. Religion is inflexible, because it proclaims that it has the truth, Science on the other hand makes no such distinction. When a religion becomes to inflexible it dies out and another takes it's place. So I am both saying that yes religion is inflexible and yes it is flexible mainly because new religions come to fore, but the old relgion was not flexible.

Also relgion is to me a outdated science, one that is fast dying out, mainly because the people place more faith in science now then they do in religion any religion for that matter.

Our reality as production of our perceptions is an interesting thought, but our perception of the world do not change the world, it exists regardless of what we believe. I can believe all I want in a certain thing, yet no matter how much I believe in it that thing will not exist. Yes I guess science does place faith in objective reality, but science says our reality is our perception and because the reality does not change regardless of what we percieve this means that there is true reality. Anyway we can only exist in the world we know, and I say to that assumption that I think therefore I am, the world exists I percieve the world existing, and science exists the world that is real rather than religion which doesn't.

Science is different in that it changes, religion doesn't yes new religions come up but those religions die out, the old religion does not adapt to the changing situation, it dies out.

[C Elegans]

I'm impressed by the insightful and thoughworthy posts many of you have made here

posted by Gwalchmai:

There is no continuum between science and religion. They are two different and separate things!

I agree with Gwally here. Science and religion share some common characteristics, and historically the two of them have been more or less intertwined in different cultures and different times. But this does not mean they are two points at the same scale, or continuum, there are some fundamental differences both in basic principles, purpose and direction. Modern science and religion are two discret, different things - but IMO they don't necessarity contradict each other either, they just deal with diffferent aspects of human life and the world.

Originally posted by Aegis
In a sense this is true, but what about Scientology? It's a relgion, but it's one that bases everything on hard fact, and doesn't involve faith in a book, or events that passed thousands of years ago.

The scientology church is classified as a destructive cult in Sweden, their doctrines are not based on facts. Perhaps the Swedish faction is very different from the Canadian one? In Sweden, the Scientologist have made themselves known by selling personality developement courses that are supposed to make people more intelligent, and communicate better. Those courses are totally at utterly unscientific and not at all based on what is known about personality developement and cogntive functioning from a scientific perspective. They also teach that people contain remains of dead aliens, and removal of these alien spirits is very expensive. I don't think I need to point out the lack of scientific foundation for that.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by C Elegans
The scientology church is classified as a destructive cult in Sweden, their doctrines are not based on facts. Perhaps the Swedish faction is very different from the Canadian one? In Sweden, the Scientologist have made themselves known by selling personality developement courses that are supposed to make people more intelligent, and communicate better. Those courses are totally at utterly unscientific and not at all based on what is known about personality developement and cogntive functioning from a scientific perspective. They also teach that people contain remains of dead aliens, and removal of these alien spirits is very expensive. I don't think I need to point out the lack of scientific foundation for that.

And I agree completly with that statement. What I was getting at, though, was that there is a continum, unlike what Gwally said. I beleieve that they can coinside with each other, but because neither one is willing to, what we end up getting is this scientology stuff. This all times back to original statment of why the true meaning of science is lost on the general masses. It is because of religion. In the bible (Especially the Old Testament) knowledge is frowned upon. Everytime someone does something that gains them knowledge, something bad happens to them, so what does the bible do? It gets mythical (If this term offends anyone, PM me) figureheads to come down and tell them not to do that particular thing (IE/ The tree of Knowledge, and Adam and eve being expelled form the garden for eating from it)

Religion itself is not bad, but it has become a belief structure, something it was never intended to become. It was originally an idea. The difference between these two things is that and idea can be changed, but a belief, good luck changing that sucker. It's the chruch, and the supposedly orgainized religion that brings the bluring line to people, and their quest for knowledge. Those people put so much faith into one little book, that they lose track of whats really happening, and they lose their conection with the real world.

For instance, we'll take through the looking glass as an example, written by Lewis Carol. The poem, The Walrus and the Carpentor, is a direct indightment of orgainzed religion, and shows how those who are unknowledgeable about the world get hurt by it. The Walrus, with his girth, obviously represents Budha, or with his tusks, the Indian god, Lord Ganeasha(sp?). that takes care of the eastern religions. Then, the Carpentor is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was born a carpentors son. Now, in this poem, what do they do? The dupe a bunch of oysters into following them, and then procede to shock and devour them en masse. It is this fear of some parental figure from millenia away that keeps people in the religion, and away from the real truth. Their is a set a guidelines that all "good" christians must follow, otherwise some figurehead from who knows how long ago shakes his finger and says "Do it, or I'll spank you!" It is this kind of thing that keeps science where it is, and almost ridiculed for any acheivment that is not something that can be marketed cheaply, or is directly important to that one person. anyway. I've been talking for a bit, my fingers hurt.

[Sailor Saturn]

Originally posted by Aegis
In the bible (Especially the Old Testament) knowledge is frowned upon. Everytime someone does something that gains them knowledge, something bad happens to them, so what does the bible do? It gets mythical (If this term offends anyone, PM me) figureheads to come down and tell them not to do that particular thing (IE/ The tree of Knowledge, and Adam and eve being expelled form the garden for eating from it)

Aegis, did you not read my earlier post in which I addressed this? The Bible does not frown upon knowledge. The Bible is, itself, a way to gain knowledge about the events mentioned within the Bible. Again, you make a inaccurate reference by refering to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I'll quote myself so you don't have to go back to the earlier post.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
However, I do have to point out an inaccuracy in one of your statements. The Bible does not depict anything that gains knowledge as a bad thing. If that were the case, then the entire book of Revelations would have to be removed from the Bible. As for the "Eating from the tree of knowledge," you have made a grave mistake here. It may have been intentional, but I will assume that it wasn't since you don't seem like the type of person who would intentially twist facts. Adam and Eve were told to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I, personally, am not sure that there was any knowledge to be gained directly from the eating of the fruit of this tree. By eating it, they disobeyed God. They were disobedient children. They did some wrong. Wrong = Evil. As soon as they ate it, they realized that had done wrong. They then knew evil and they then knew the difference between good and evil and learned that there were consequences that came with evil. But, in a perfect world, what need is there for the knowledge of evil?

I have one thing to add at the end of that. In a perfect world where there is no evil to know of, what need is there for the knowledge of evil?

FYI, I'm not offended by your use of the term "mythical" since you don't believe in the Bible, but I would appreciate it if you'd get your facts straight before posting them...thank you.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
Aegis, did you not read my earlier post in which I addressed this? The Bible does not frown upon knowledge. The Bible is, itself, a way to gain knowledge about the events mentioned within the Bible. Again, you make a inaccurate reference by refering to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I'll quote myself so you don't have to go back to the earlier post.

SS,I know you are an intelligent person, but I looked this up last night, and it is in fact the Tree of Kowledge, not the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge is of good and evil, but the tree isn't what teaches them that. The tree is merely the knowledge. Once they had that, they became aware, but that wasn't my point. I suggest you reread, because I think the point have been lost on you.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Aegis
I suggest you reread, because I think the point have been lost on you.

I also think that this subject is deviating off the intended course of discussion. Aegis and SS could you please take this conversation to PM since it is not directly relevant to the current discussion.