6 ms·

We can detect Higgs boson in principle (and may have recently). Religion on the other hand remains ramblings of bronze age goat herders who "knew" the secrets o

We can detect Higgs boson in principle (and may have recently). Religion on the other hand remains ramblings of bronze age goat herders who "knew" the secrets of the universe because a burning bush revealed it to them. We now have ample evidence that theistic gods are man made inventions. For those of us who care about what is true, this is enough to discard religion as a pure lie, which is not even a force for the good in the world (child raping, crusades, inquisitions, suicide bombers, jihads, Armageddons and end of times. These people just can't wait to die or if they can't live forever, kill everyone else as well with them). Science on the other hand is not a belief system. Evidence based reasoning doesn't work that way. It strikes me as odd that someone who is presumably a trained scientist hasn't even understood that basic charge theists put forward repeatedly (it boils down to "it takes equal amount of faith not to believe in god as it does to believe in god" applied to all kinds of things in this case science based on empirical evidence. As if there is even a trace of credible evidence for god. In fact when you start poking around various deities it gets incredibly uncomfortable for the religious because of how little evidence there is for historicity of say Jesus let alone his presumed divinity.). Awe and amazement is not exclusive to religion you know. Just like how religion has hijacked morals and now boldly claims you can't be a moral person without some kind of delusion in sky god (it doesn't even have to be their brand of delusion, anything is better than atheism or secularism). These people fail to understand that morals like language are also products of our wills and minds and therefore also a technology. We can decide slavery is not a good idea (despite endorsement from Yahweh). We can decide that fairly applied laws, rather than nepotistic favoritism, is a good idea. We can outlaw certain punishments with treaties. We can encourage accountability with the invention of writing. We can consciously expand our circle of empathy. These are all inventions, products of our minds, as much as lightbulbs and telegraphs are. People who insist on absolute biblical morality are really insisting on using bronze age technology absolutely. Time and time again, religion is proving itself incapable of catching up with the achievements of secular society, which is not surprising really, religion is now a branch of human ignorance. It was our first approximation of science, first explanation for everything primitive mind feared but could not explain, but it failed to evolve and improve because of its insistence on supernatural and supernatural explanations, which simply are not supported by evidence. And this brings me to a larger point, why do we even have religion today? Precisely because believing is lot easier than thinking. It takes time and effort to acquire knowledge but any fool can acquire faith instantly and effortlessly. If it took any effort most people would not bother with it. And the biggest problem with all of this is this love affair with ignorance is made into a virtue by religion.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
think-large 14y ago
You realize that much of what you have to say in this is based on a leap of faith. You've limited your view to what you can learn from only your 5 senses and that nothing else exists. If anything science DENIES that as a truth with the discovery of the non-visual light spectrum. Much of science denies exactly what you claim. Science is a model to explain data and experience, while predicting what can happen. There are many theories, many of which change. A thesis (or leap of faith) is examined and DISproven. They are never proven to be 100% true. Math has proofs, not science. So please understand that it is important to realize that there is ALWAYS another explanation for something. You are irrational in your defense of Science. I do not know that there is a God. I think people who claim such things are fools as you said. I have faith that there is one. It is a thesis of mine and as of right now there is no disproof. To have doubt is to be logical :-)
- rbanffy 14y ago
  > To have doubt is to be logical :-) And this is why the article makes no sense. Religion cannot produce a testable hypothesis. It is, therefore, useless as a tool for explaining anything - it's as useful as a magnifying glass with a painting instead of a lens. The painting may be impressive and moving, but it's not about the bug you are examining. There is always another explanation, but, unless that other explanation is as testable as what we currently assume to be closest to correctness, it should not be considered.
- super_mario 14y ago
  You are actually quite confused. Yes, science has theories (which is a highest pedestal a hypothesis can be placed upon) and only math has theorems (I'm a mathematician by the way so I know the distinction). Scientific method is an approximation method. It converges on the "truth" but may never reach it. This is why Einstein famously said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong." I quoted truth above because there is no such thing as truth really. We only have models. And even more there is not such thing as model independent reality. When you start talking about things (e.g. light) without using a particular model of it you run into all sorts of problems rather quickly. You are also working under the assumption that things you can't see directly can't be considered evidence. This is patently not true. We can never see electron with our own eyes directly, but we can detect it by other means. What god do you believe exists? If you are referring to deistic god (the one that may perhaps have kicked off the universe, but does not interfere in it any more) then no one can in principle provide a proof it exists nor that it does not exist. At most we can say is such a hypothesis is no longer needed. It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). This is why Occam's razor cuts such hypothesis as superfluous thing, because it does not explain anything new, but poses more questions. Theism on the other hand is not simply belief in gods. Theism is belief in gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their people, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity etc. This theistic concept of god is quite distinct from a deistic god who may perhaps have kicked off the universe and set its laws, but who does not interfere in it any more. And it is this theistic god that we now know is a man made invention.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

think-large 14y ago

You realize that much of what you have to say in this is based on a leap of faith. You've limited your view to what you can learn from only your 5 senses and that nothing else exists. If anything science DENIES that as a truth with the discovery of the non-visual light spectrum. Much of science denies exactly what you claim. Science is a model to explain data and experience, while predicting what can happen. There are many theories, many of which change. A thesis (or leap of faith) is examined and DISproven. They are never proven to be 100% true. Math has proofs, not science. So please understand that it is important to realize that there is ALWAYS another explanation for something. You are irrational in your defense of Science. I do not know that there is a God. I think people who claim such things are fools as you said. I have faith that there is one. It is a thesis of mine and as of right now there is no disproof. To have doubt is to be logical :-)

rbanffy 14y ago
> To have doubt is to be logical :-) And this is why the article makes no sense. Religion cannot produce a testable hypothesis. It is, therefore, useless as a tool for explaining anything - it's as useful as a magnifying glass with a painting instead of a lens. The painting may be impressive and moving, but it's not about the bug you are examining. There is always another explanation, but, unless that other explanation is as testable as what we currently assume to be closest to correctness, it should not be considered.
super_mario 14y ago
You are actually quite confused. Yes, science has theories (which is a highest pedestal a hypothesis can be placed upon) and only math has theorems (I'm a mathematician by the way so I know the distinction). Scientific method is an approximation method. It converges on the "truth" but may never reach it. This is why Einstein famously said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong." I quoted truth above because there is no such thing as truth really. We only have models. And even more there is not such thing as model independent reality. When you start talking about things (e.g. light) without using a particular model of it you run into all sorts of problems rather quickly. You are also working under the assumption that things you can't see directly can't be considered evidence. This is patently not true. We can never see electron with our own eyes directly, but we can detect it by other means. What god do you believe exists? If you are referring to deistic god (the one that may perhaps have kicked off the universe, but does not interfere in it any more) then no one can in principle provide a proof it exists nor that it does not exist. At most we can say is such a hypothesis is no longer needed. It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). This is why Occam's razor cuts such hypothesis as superfluous thing, because it does not explain anything new, but poses more questions. Theism on the other hand is not simply belief in gods. Theism is belief in gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their people, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity etc. This theistic concept of god is quite distinct from a deistic god who may perhaps have kicked off the universe and set its laws, but who does not interfere in it any more. And it is this theistic god that we now know is a man made invention.