Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Jasonzzz
I don't know which posts you're reading but you "observations" are just plain wrong.

I am no fundamentalist. I am involved in scientific endevours and can provide insight into that culture.

I can tell you that I, and every other scientist, know that science is not a religion. I don't understand why you can't accept this fact.

I never said that religious people are non-intellects. This will be the third time I make this statement. Religion requires faith not necessarily intellegence. This is an if statment. NOT an if and only if. It does NOT go both ways! People can be intellegent and be religious.

Science on the other hand, requires you to be intellegent to understand it. Intellegence is a pre-requisite. The non-intellegent cannot be scientists. The intellegence level of the person just dictates how far one can go in this field.

Is that spelled out enough for you now?

I'll say this statment for the second time. I am not saying that scientists are better people. I'm only stating facts (see above).

The fact of the matter is that science is a very complicated area. It takes years of hard study to do anything in it. So, can most of the population contibute to science? The sheer fact of the matter is that they can't. Can they learn and talk about it? Why not. They just must understand there limitations to what they can do and listen to those "in the know" when they speak. ie We say that science is not a religion. Accept it!

So, by your opinion I am no scientist and/or I don't think like one. Actually I do. And my wife (who has a PhD in Physics by the way) is the one that told me that, it's just not my opinion.

The fact of the matter is that someone posted something that was clearly untrue. I made a post stating that along with a list of reasons why it was untrue. So, how is that not acting like a scientist?

I also find it amusing that you seem to think (having not even met me) that you presume to know where my heart and mind are.

These are *not* new ideas. People have come up with them time and time again. People like me state that they are false time and time again. So, if I must impologize for have a canned response to a conversation that I've had many times with many people that has seemed to intimidated you and put you on the defensive. I'm sorry. But this doesn't change the facts.

I've also learned a lot about the worlds religions (among other things). It's been a serious hobby of mine for some time (read: > 5 years) and a interest for much longer. So, as you can see, I have some other knowledge that makes me more knowledgable that you thought when it comes to this topic.

And this wasn't a scientific idea. I was a sociological one. One that is quite incorrect. As someone who lives in the realm of science, I found it necessary to correct the situation.


But, if you have any scientific ideas that you would like to discuss I'd be happy to. I am competent in Physics and Mathematics (varying levels) and know a smattering of some others. If it is indeed a scientific idea, you'll find that I am quite ready to discuss. And if the topic isn't scientific and I know something about it, I'd be happy to join in (as the case is here).

Also, if someone is wants to know about such things, I'd be happy to explain some stuff or direct them to where they can find it (I've done this here before). Spreading knowledge is always a good thing. Misinformation on the otherhand is not. Which is what this discussion started off as and what you are currently doing. I would dare say that the obvious lies that you are saying about me here would border on slander.


I also in closing must mention one thing. You and I have been involved in a discussion on this topic before. In fact it was during just this past summer. When I was reading your current posts (Jasonzzz has been missing for a little while) something seemed off. You aren't posting as you have in the past. This little episode has made you make comments that are contrary to this fact. It has led me to the conclusion that there is a significant possibility that the person using the handle Jasonzzz now isn't the same one from back then. Then again, this is just an observation.

Also, might I ask what field of science you are involved in?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Jasonzzz
You know what. I read the first 2 paragraphes of your post and came to the conclusion that I believe that you aren't really reading my posts. You are only interpreting them and thus impressing you version of what I said instead of read what I said. This is the last post that I will reply to unless you become civilized enough to actually read my posts.

You make the assumption that I don't have a PhD when all I have done is state that someone else that is clearly "in the know" has told me I think that way. Do I have one? No. Does anyone without years of study? No. I am still studying. Does this mean that I am not capable of it (like you imply)? No.

And anthropology and sociology are *NOT* science. They are social science. There is a large difference there.

I never lashed out. I defended my postition. If you would actually read my posts then you would realize this.

You are the one that has interpreted that my statements have stated that scientists cannot be religious. I'll state it again for this one. It is not an if and only if. It is an if, period. It does not go both ways. Go back and read, I mean actually read my statments and read what they say. Don't push onto what you think they imply but read what they say. They were very carefully constructed to avoid these situations for those that actually read. To put it clearly, scientists can be religious, I never said that they couldn't be.

And you are the one that has read "smugness" in my posts. To be certain it was not there by my hand, you put it there yourself. I'll let those that are open-minded enough to read what is there and not push there own thoughts on them to read my posts and at least to them, I will be validated.

Science doesn't explain the world around us. I explains how it works. Science never says where it comes from, that is religion. There is no creation myth in science (no Big Bang isn't one, that is another argument though).

You still haven't told me what field you are in. This leads me to beleive that you aren't really who you say you are.

I can understand how someone might come to the misguided conclusion that science is a religion, but that doesn't make it right or correct.

Basically, science answers the questions of how the world works. Religion answers the questions why. These are mutually exclusive questions and answers and the division between them is a fuzzy mess. But that is only because of peoples perceptions, not reality. To "someone in the know" these lines are quite clear.

Lastly,
Question: Why do people die?
Religion: It is the way God intended or [insert other religious answer here]
Science: In what way of dying are you speaking of? The answer will most certainly be biological. Note: Biology isn't religion, far from it in fact.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

my understanding and belief is that science as a field and as a concept serves to define and explain the world around us. That in itself serves as a form of religion.

Here's what I want to leave you with: In the field of anthropology and many other fields, as I have briefly outlined here and in other posts, science is considered a form of religion. It's fine that you yourself do not believe this or cannot understand this...

They are both, in their own way, fairly elaborate and complete believe systems that let's people understand and explain the world around them.

I've explained to you and provided examples to you that a bushman's believe in how and why things work around him is, to him, no less rational than your system of explain how the world works around you. But you brush it off as "not scientific" and something less rigorous and sophisticated. In fact, you are correct that it is in fact not scientific, but it doesn't make his system of believe any less real to him. To him, his explanations work.

I hope that you would dispense with the notion that knowing that science is no less a religion than diety worshiping is a religion, in that, they both provide a fairly complete system of believe in explain the world around them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

it seems like anything obscure that's more than 1 year old is lost in the river's vast flow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

My observation about the science/religion debate is that the frustration stems from having sociological explanations of what science does and how it functions made by non-scientists who don't actually know the process. It's like having someone explain to an auto mechanic how an IC engine works by starting out 'first you turn the key, and then it makes a noise ...'
[snip]
As for religion, in its very process it is antithetical to science.
[snip]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

From Slate, a more critical view of religion, and ignorance (from a much longer article http://slate.msn.com/id/2109218/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

OpenBSD !!! The people I know who know about these things say - way cool.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

To an anthropologist looking in at both religion and science, the purposes are strikingly similar. An argument could be made that religion describes why things happen, and science describes how things happen. Their underlying purposes, while the mechanics do differ, can appear to be flip-sides of the same coin to an un-involved observer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Jasonzzz
I feel like I'm spinning my wheels with you. After reading the first few paragraphs here I feel that you read but are dismissing my points. I have tried to address your points and back up my objections with reasoning. I don't think that you are doing the same. It's along the same lines as talking with someone and talking at them. As such this will be my last post. Any parting remarks will be ignored. Though I will mention that I appreciate the reduction in your tone, thank you. I hope that you can read this post as I have read yours.

You also still haven't told me what your field is.

My reason for *knowing* that anthropology and the such are *not* sciences can be addressed by *very* simple reasoning. They aren't part of the Faculty of Science. They are part of the Faculty of Arts. Which is pretty much what they are.

I'll mention at this point that I really don't think (and many people feel this way as well) that Math is a science. To me it is more of an art as well. I personally call it, the linguistics of science. I'm sure others do as well.

Also, I'm not confusing anything. I've given this topic a great many hours of thought and have spoken to make people, both "in the know" and not, from multiple fields. I have come to the conclusion that science is not a religion. Scientists also come to this conclusion. Non-scientists that I come across that I speak with also do not deny it as well.

Point of fact. My wife was telling a college of hers about this little discussion and he just got a confused look on his face, thought for a few seconds and stated clearly, "But they're completely different." And in case your wondering about a homogenous set of people here. I'm Canadian, my wife's German and her college mentioned above is Iranian. Just a little bit of different backgrounds, eh?

I also think that you are confused about what information you have provided. You mention many things that you say you have provided yet you have not provided.

And in any future discussion please don't patronize me by telling me that I don't understand things about religion. Or did you miss the part when I told you that I've studied it for the past number of years? Yes, I realize that ther are (and know of), a number of religions that don't have a diety. etc.

To the rest of the things that you bring up. I leave for my posts to tell what I know. And I would hope that your posts tell of what you do not. I'm not being smug here. I'm only telling what I, along with countless other *in the field*, know for a *fact*. Sorry, but you reading books that tell the contrary don't put a dent in what I, my wife, etc *live*.

And by the way, gravity waves are purely theoretical. Every attempt to detect them has failed. Just like your arguments.

You might look to my comment on what science and religion attempt to explain (how and why respectively). Think about that.

You might also want to think about the fact that every point that you've made I've showed to my wife. Her response in every case is, confused look, "What!" And that's not a I don't understand what he's saying thing, it a, this man's (woman's?) mad. So, if you're not going to trust someone still in the mist of his studies, at least trust someone who *is* in the field living it every day.

And on this note, since this conversation is going nowhere and you refuse to admit basic facts about a community that myself and my wife live in. I'll bow out now as I've wasted too much time on this already.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:

To an anthropologist looking in at both religion and science, the purposes are strikingly similar. An argument could be made that religion describes why things happen, and science describes how things happen. Their underlying purposes, while the mechanics do differ, can appear to be flip-sides of the same coin to an un-involved observer.

---

Very true, and this is where the confusion lies and my reasoning behind why someone has to be "in the know" to distinguish the to. How much someone has to know is open for debate. But, I would gather that the figure is variable depending on the person. In the end though, once all the scrutiny is said and done, they are *very* different beasts.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Science is a system of testing hypotheses against reality, an objective phenomenon. By constantly ignoring this distinction, you've completely eliminated the ESSENTIAL difference between religion and science. I don't think that science has "proven facts". I think EVERY scientist understands that scientific concepts are provisional. I can look forward to paradigm shifts as our understanding becomes more encompassing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

If what you're saying is that AS FAR AS THE AVERAGE PERSON IS CONCERNED science may as well be a religion, that is a deficiency in teaching the scientific method, not in science itself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

I do, however, disagree with the notion that only highly trained people can engage in science. There was a theory in tiling (math) that four colors could only be arranged into several unique combinations, until a housewife in San Diego started tiling her kitchen. The greatest advances in mathematics handling n-dimensional space (where n is 5,6, or 7) was developed by physicists, not mathematicians. Paradigm-breakers are often not well-educated in their field of study.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Perhaps you are right, you are not qualified to hold up your side of the conversation at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Science is a system of testing hypotheses against reality, an objective phenomenon. By constantly ignoring this distinction, you've completely eliminated the ESSENTIAL difference between religion and science. I don't think that science has "proven facts". I think EVERY scientist understands that scientific concepts are provisional. I can look forward to paradigm shifts as our understanding becomes more encompassing.

---

Thank you, for voicing something that I wasn't able to!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

If what you're saying is that AS FAR AS THE AVERAGE PERSON IS CONCERNED science may as well be a religion, that is a deficiency in teaching the scientific method, not in science itself.

---

Very true!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

I do, however, disagree with the notion that only highly trained people can engage in science. There was a theory in tiling (math) that four colors could only be arranged into several unique combinations, until a housewife in San Diego started tiling her kitchen. The greatest advances in mathematics handling n-dimensional space (where n is 5,6, or 7) was developed by physicists, not mathematicians. Paradigm-breakers are often not well-educated in their field of study.

---

I disagree... partially. I've been speaking in general terms. And in general, the average person cannot contribute to science. Is this an absolute? No. There are always exceptions to rules and you listed one of them.

But when I comes to Physicists doing math. It is known that Physicists have created more math lately than the mathematitions... kind of. Physicists don't like proving things as rigorously as the math people do so the math people finish it off. Which isn't always the easiest thing to do.

Also the distinction (and my wife wouldn't necessarily agree completely here) between mathematics and Physics isn't really all that distinct. At least if you're talking about theoretical Physics.

It is also fairly common for people to switch from mathematics to theoretical physics and vis versa (the wife and I agree here). They are *very* related fields.

To back myself up here, there are many university math departments that offer degrees in General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory, etc. There are also Physics Departments that offer degrees relating to chaotic systems, which is a largely mathematical field right now. Or when it comes to mathematical physics, well, that's rather mathy and could definitly be considered an area of applied math, so much so that it is taught through the math department (and I think it is in some places).

Another closely related field is Computer Science. Even some Com.Sci. Departments are the ones to offer the universities Graph Theory course (which is traditionally math).

Basically, what I'm saying here, is that you don't have to be a specialist in the field to contribute. But, in general, you must be rather educated in that field or a closely related one. But, now we're starting getting picky on details. Do we really want to define things so rigorously?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Jasonzzz
Apparently since I have left this discussion you now feel it is ok to insult and attempt to bring me back in. Thank you for showing you true colours to myself and everyone else here. And by the way, I've done none of those things in your list nor do I think that way. The other posts that I've made here prove otherwise.

If you don't understand that different upbringings begets different ways of thinking, begets different... Then you don't really know much about sociology, anthropology, etc (or the world for that matter) at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


Something that I think that you should really think about is why, when confronted with someone who holds a different opinion than you (sorry, fact). Someone that has some authority (not claiming total here), you refuse to listen. Why when this happens and that person then refuses to discus further with you, you imediatly turn to insulting, name calling, etc? I forget who said it, but there is a nice quote, I'll paraphrase "Violence is the first reaction of the unintellegent."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Perhaps you are right, you are not qualified to hold up your side of the conversation at all.

---

This I find absolutly amusing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


And you still haven't told me you field of study. Interesting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


And for the rest of you that are reading this, and I know that most if not all of you will do this, but I just want to make sure. Please, read my posts. Don't take what Jasonzzz said about them because if you read my posts, you'll see that what he states that I stand for and have said is a complete lie.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:



Please note that I won't be replying to any of his posts further in this thread. For those who care (I doubted as I'm not exactly anyone important) I have stated my case quite clearly and if he makes any remarks toward me, the answer will be clearly dirivable (for those who care to know) from my above posts. If not, ask. But, I won't be involved in conversing with a clearly hysterical (wo)man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


Jasonzzz, I'm sorry it has come to this. But, unless you can show some restraint, this'll have to be the last we speak. I have no desire to communicate, in any form, with someone that behaves like you have in these last number of posts.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

---

Quote:

---

I've never said that there are no distinguishing features between science and religion. Give up that idea please. There are differences in how they affirm their beliefs. Each religion has it's very own way of creating new beliefs and affirming them. So as it does in science. What you folks don't seem to realize is that neither science nor any of the religions describes nature and the world around them exactly and perfectly

---

Quote:

---

I disagree... partially. I've been speaking in general terms. And in general, the average person cannot contribute to science. Is this an absolute? No. There are always exceptions to rules and you listed one of them.

---

Quote:

---

From The Private Albert Einstein by Peter A. Bucky with Allen G. Weakland, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992, pp 85 - 87. This book contains the record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period. BUCKY:

It's ironic that your namc has been synonymous with science in the twentieth century, and yet there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding you in relation to religious questions. How do you account for this unusual circumstance, since science and religion are usually thought to be at odds?

EINSTEIN:

Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.

BUCKY:

So then, you consider yourself to be a religious man?

EINSTEIN:

I believe in mystery and, frankly, I sometimes face this mystery with great fear. In other words, I think that there are many things in the universe that we cannot perceive or penetrate and that also we experience some of the most beautiful things in life in only a very primitive form. Only in relation to these mysteries do I consider myself to be a religious man. But I sense these things deeply. What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life.

BUCKY:

You don't believe in God, then?

EINSTEIN:

Einstein's Last PhotographAh, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquaintcd with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respectivc planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses? No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Jasonzz-

Quote:

---

I've never said that there are no distinguishing features between science and religion. Give up that idea please. There are differences in how they affirm their beliefs. Each religion has it's very own way of creating new beliefs and affirming them. So as it does in science. What you folks don't seem to realize is that neither science nor any of the religions describes nature and the world around them exactly and perfectly

---

So tell me- how does science affirms its beliefs and how does RELIGION affirm its beliefs? Be as explicit and detailed as you can, especially when dealing with religion, because apparently this is your area of expertise. Please explore the limits of how religion affirms its beliefs- give me as many examples as you can find, not only of "typical" religious affirmations but also those that stretch the boundaries... for example, would you include people seeking visions in peyote? People building telescopes? I'm relying on your knowledge, so again, I ask you to fully flesh out this part of your argument. Thanks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Sigmanunki- I think you expressed yourself well on the nature of science. I enjoy your posts, I should be thanking YOU!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

The average person who is uneducated in science may not "contribute" much to formal science (with exceptions) but anyone who repeatedly tries something and modifies their attempts based on the results is engaging in rudimentary science. I think that's where science began.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Just out of curiosity, I've had this idea that many people who come up with truly novel hypotheses are often not well educated in that particular field. The person who came up with the prion protein theory was a mathematician, not a biologist. As I said, the people who developed n-dimensional mathematics were physicists, not mathematicians. Now I realize that Darwin. Watson, and Crick were indeed biologists, but do you think it's possible that people who are well-trained in a certain area could be a little TOO adjusted to the underlying assumptions?

---

Quote:

---

My point is that society as a whole takes science on faith. ... if the person doesn't believe it in the first place, proof will never be enough.
Furthermore, there are quite a few gaps in sience such as why Newton's laws don't work on the sub-atmoic level, which are glossed over with "science hasn't discovered it yet." Which sounds rather similar to "God hasn't revealed it yet."
To roughly qualify as a religion you must:
1. Give an explanation to the world around.
2. Explain "crisis" events.
3. Have a seperate class/caste (in your case scientists)who interprets the above things.
As for your a priori argument, I would counter with Decarte, maybe bring up the analogy of the cave which leads us to psycology which is a "science" in which people put huge amounts of faith (and money) which can easily be argued is an acceptable replacement for religious absolution.

---

Quote:

---

But when I comes to Physicists doing math. It is known that Physicists have created more math lately than the mathematitions... kind of. Physicists don't like proving things as rigorously as the math people do so the math people finish it off. Which isn't always the easiest thing to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

SignyM and Sigmanuki - I feel lucky and honored to be included in your discourse.

---

Quote:

---

Hey TragicStory
Thanks for posting the word 'absolution'. Though I have to say I'm still gnawing on your post and trying to get it. I think you pro'ly used certain short-hand concepts, that I, not familiar with your field, don't follow. Too bad about your 'puter. I hope you can get back to this fine site soon.
Rue

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Well, I fixed my comp: Yay me!
For starters: Damn did I hijack this thread. Sorry, it was not my intention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

To the science guys: Have you ever argued why Christianity is wrong to a fundie? It seems that Jason and I are having the same troubles here with you guys. Not that I really care. If you say science is not a religion, all the more power to you. I just can't prove anything if you will not try to see things from my side. (I am willing to call it impasse since I have better things to do.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

Religion changes, drastically and in a very short time. Off the top of my head: Rastafarianism (sp?) when Hallie Sallesi (sp?) died, Rastas had to spin that really quickly. Mormonism (LDS if you prefer) the death of Mr. Young brought a profound change to the religion. Judaism and the destruction of the Temple. Hell, the creation of the state of Israel is living proof of the change in religion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

In closing: our major problem is we have different definitions of things: religion; belief system, belief, truth, proof and so on. I have a feeling that this debate would be better over a nice pint of scotch in person, where the subtle nuances of differences can be explored before a (confusing) counter argument is made.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:

PS. This rivals the dreaded "fanvid thread" in length and has been so much nicer. Thanks guys.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

as in the scientist who can’t get his paper published

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The problem is that modern, western science is predicated upon the assumption that there are only five senses. Other forms of investigation are scorned. Science has a very hard time acknowledging the very existence (let alone efficacy) of intuition. This is a limitation that Science has chosen because these first five senses are provable through scientific means. All other senses have thus far proven utterly elusive to its grasp.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

The wise scientist, therefore, understands that this limitation is formal and not metaphysical. The wise scientist agrees with Hamlet that there are “more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of” in Science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

If you ask me, both extremes have done harm and impeded the developement of our species.
[/b

---

Quote:

---

Truth is a funny thing, people. The truth is good enough for me; pure, clean, based on fact, and unbiased. You may choose to believe otherwise, it is your choice (which people tend to forget the freedom to make up omne's own mind!!!)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:

Quote:

---

Truth is a funny thing, people. The truth is good enough for me; pure, clean, based on fact, and unbiased. You may choose to believe otherwise, it is your choice (which people tend to forget the freedom to make up omne's own mind!!!)

---

I love this statement because it sums up how I feel..you see I don't care what the truth is I just want to know it whatever it may be..

some people only want to know the truth if they can handle it!!

---

Quote:

---

The wise scientist, therefore, understands that this limitation is formal and not metaphysical. The wise scientist agrees with Hamlet that there are “more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of” in Science. The credulous (or if you will, religious) scientist does not. Because he cannot produce evidence of God in a petri dish he calls himself an atheist. He raises Science from a mere method or tool into a Cosmology, a kind of god in its own right.-HK Cavalier

---

Quote:

---

Basically, in the rest of the world (and from what my wife tells me it is even more so, in the direction that I defend) science is not perceived as anything of a religion. There are too many differences. I beleive that this perception that science is a religion comes from a lack of education and understanding of what science really is. -Sigmanunki

---

Quote:

---

If you say science is not a religion, all the more power to you. I just can't prove anything if you will not try to see things from my side....First, define religion- Write it down: Make sure it will include Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus Bhudists, Native Americans and what you think will be the "bare bones" they share in common.- Tragicstory

---

Quote:

---

You can see anything if you use the right filters- Rue

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

I hope I have the essentials here?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Code of Behavior

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Afterlife

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

World story

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Controlling larger forces

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Hierarchy

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

I think the perception that of science that everything is known or knowable is false.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Science, as far as I can tell, doesn't provide a code of behavior. It doesn't tell people what is "right or wrong" except in the realm of how to perform science.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Both science and relgion attempt to provide a "world story".
...
for example, my opinion is that the "big bang" theory actually came from relgion because applying all known interactions comes up with too many fudge factors- dark matter, dark force etc. I personally think we are just missing some fundamental concept that would create a paradigm shift

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Afterlife and the "supernatural".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
If the President does anything to piss you off that much, arrange a peaceful gathering to protest whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.

---

Quote:

---

That's it. I'm fed up. You all have seen my posts, you know I'm typically very gracious and try to only discuss positions and issues, but I'm just tired of having my intellect and personality come into question based on how I vote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF RELIGIOUS PPL WOULD JOIN IN AND LET ADD THEIR VIEWS OF RELIGION. (Otherwise y'all get stuck with me trying to explain your beliefs! )

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Code of behavior

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Is it possible that religion is an early attempt at social engineering???

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Afterlife

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

World story

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Controlling larger forces

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

All of that is to say that I agree that the ESSENTIAL aspect of religion is a belief in the supernatural. ANY RELIGIOUS PPL DISAGREE?? Enquiring minds want to know!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

But I can imagine that there are phenomena that science will NEVER describe and NEVER be able to predict. Will we consider these "supernatural"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

The past no longer exists. The future doesn't exist either. We live in the present- in a vanishingly small space between two voids. How can we exist in nothing, between nothing? We're like a twinkle on the crest of a wave, with nothing behind us and nothing before us. It is the hubris of humanity to say with certainty... "I KNOW".

That's my belief.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

As to science's inescapable limits, I think at least with some people (I can speak for myself) the biggest back-of-the-brain thought as I move forward is "What am I NOT seeing?" And I don't believe I'll ever know.

---