7 ms·
Modern science has become increasingly atheistic and pitting itself against faith and religion with it's own dogma and leaps of faith. This is a relatively rec
by amalag 14y ago
Modern science has become increasingly atheistic and pitting itself against faith and religion with it's own dogma and leaps of faith. This is a relatively recent phenomena probably started by religious persecution.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
- RexRollman 14y agoAre you serious? If anything is pitting itself against something, it is the religious trying to suppress knowledge in order to prop up their superstitions.
- rosser 14y agoDawkins? EDIT: In order to avoid simply offering a flippant (if true) one-word reply, let me also say that your comment is as guilty of painting with an overly broad brush as the GP comment. Some religious folk are anti-science. Some scientists are rabidly anti-religious. Most of both are neither. There are just a lot more religious people than there are scientists, and religion tends to lend itself towards being a pulpit for extreme views more readily than science. Coupling those facts, of course it's going to seem like religion wants to beat science up and leave it for dead.
- tokipin 14y agothe important difference, i think, is that in our culture science argues through its own coherence, whereas religion, devoid of coherence, argues and manifests itself through politics. coherence is a stronger case, but politics is a bigger stick
- littlegiantcap 14y agoWhich of course is the reason that the Vatican keeps teams of scientist on hand that includes over 5 Nobel laurites. It's almost like painting us religious people with broad strokes is as backwards and ignorant as making general statements about "blacks" or "homosexuals".
- mattgreenrocks 14y agoShh, that isn't helping the persecution complex any! Seriously, both religious and scientific folk need to get over themselves on this schtick. Policy moves forward at a glacial pace because culture abhors all change, and regularly seeks the path of least resistance.
- cpleppert 14y agoYou have a category problem. Science's ability to seek causal explanation to phenomena is why it functions. You can't selectively reject theories just because they conflict with religious belief. By the way,Einstein's quote wasn't in the context of defending the intrusion of religious dogma into the scientific method. Einstein called his religion 'a cosmic religion' and described himself as agnostic.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- amalag 14y agoI think that the concept that reality can be explained by causality is itself an erroneous belief. How can we gain perfect knowledge though imperfect means?
- jlgreco 14y agoYour error is misunderstanding the premise of science. "Perfect knowledge" has nothing to do with it. Nobody but a fool would claim to have perfect knowledge, or have a system that gives it.
- amalag 14y agoAnother dogma in the name of 'science'.
- jlgreco 14y agoI would be fascinated to hear how you figure that. Literature on the scientific process is all quite clear that the process does not yield perfect knowledge, nor is it supposed to, nor can it. Also this is not a conclusion of science (the scientific process is not meant for such things) but rather epistemology and the philosophy of science.
- macspoofing 14y ago>I think that the concept that reality can be explained by causality is itself an erroneous belief. ... because why? And who says that we are trying to gain "perfect" knowledge (whatever that means?). We are trying to create the most accurate model of the universe we can. Thus far the scientific method has been wildly successful at doing just that, and we already answered several big questions, such as "Where did we come from" (a: evolution via natural selection), "What is the purpose of life" (a: there is none), not to mention that we discovered some fundamental facts about the Universe. We know the Earth is round, and orbits the Sun. We know roughly how and when the Earth and the Solar System formed. We know that every species on Earth shares an ancestor with every other one. We know the Universe has a Quantum nature (as described by QM) and that on large scales it follows principles laid out by Einstein. We can also trace the history of the Universe to within nanoseconds of its creation. And we've only been doing proper science for about 200 years, out of the 250,000 we as a species have been around. Not too shabby, wouldn't you say? And if the scientific method is too imperfect for you, pray tell, what is a better way of discovering the nature of reality? Thinking really really hard? Meditating on texts written by bronze age peoples?
- aroberge 14y agoThe word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. - Albert Einstein. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscienc... for a reference.
- rosser 14y agoPlease, let's not turn this thread into a tit-for-tat of Einstein quotes.
- mattgreenrocks 14y agoBut how will he be Right On The Internet then?
- adharmad 14y agoIts almost become fashionable to have an out-of-context quote by Einstein or some such famous scientist to support a religious position or intelligent design.
- rmc 14y agoAppeal to authority are very unscientific.
- amalag 14y agoI have to agree that the word 'god' is primitive. The closest in sanskrit is 'ishvar', or controller, it is not a designation of the highest divinity. I also think the concepts in the bible are also relatively primitive and make more emotional arguments than logical ones. The concept of the absolute truth and it's definition is a much more sophisticated approach to understanding reality as given in the vedic literatures. The absolute truth is defined as that from which everything emanates. Monotheistic thought was around thousands of years before the bible and judaism.
- jlgreco 14y ago> "Modern science has become increasingly atheistic" I am reminded of the apocryphal exchange between Napoleon and Laplace. Put simply, if the theory doesn't need gods, then gods have no business being a part of the theory. That is just simple common sense.
- rbanffy 14y ago> Modern science has become increasingly atheistic and pitting itself against faith and religion with it's own dogma and leaps of faith. Science does not require faith - it's based on theories you can prove. It also has no dogmas since you can prove even the most established theory wrong and change science with it. Much like the guy you quoted.