[Siara]

Wickian, on 06 November 2009 - 09:55 PM, said:

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

As a neo-Pagan, I'm delighted to read this. My religious sense of myself is closely tied to my perception of nature and I have no doubt that "Green views" are truely a religion.

This post has been edited by Siara: 08 November 2009 - 04:08 PM

[danielost]

Ryinrea, on 07 November 2009 - 09:16 PM, said:

Science is not a religion. Its facts., can't believe this. >.<


Agonistic aren't atheists. They are two different things.

true to most people science is not a religion. but to some it is even if they don't say it is themselves.

[The Silver Thong]

danielost, on 08 November 2009 - 09:10 AM, said:

true to most people science is not a religion. but to some it is even if they don't say it is themselves.

If we are going to start calling science a religion then we better give it a proper name. Lets think for a second how about the "religion of truth" that sounds nice

[marabod]

The Silver Thong, on 09 November 2009 - 06:58 AM, said:

If we are going to start calling science a religion then we better give it a proper name. Lets think for a second how about the "religion of truth" that sounds nice

Religion of truth would suggest that science "follows the truth", but it does not follow anything. What science does is establishes the truth by applying formal logic to the Nature, so it is rather a religion of Logic, of rationality.

[Mattshark]

marabod, on 09 November 2009 - 02:36 AM, said:

Religion of truth would suggest that science "follows the truth", but it does not follow anything. What science does is establishes the truth by applying formal logic to the Nature, so it is rather a religion of Logic, of rationality.

It lacks a dogma to be a religion though.

[marabod]

Mattshark, on 09 November 2009 - 02:37 PM, said:

It lacks a dogma to be a religion though.

Lacks a dogma? How about "weather is not a climate", applied selectively, when it only matches the theology?

[Mattshark]

marabod, on 09 November 2009 - 03:00 AM, said:

Lacks a dogma? How about "weather is not a climate", applied selectively, when it only matches the theology?

Not really a dogma, weather and climate are actually different things. Associated, yes. The same, no.

[danielost]

Mattshark, on 08 November 2009 - 09:01 PM, said:

Not really a dogma, weather and climate are actually different things. Associated, yes. The same, no.

the dogma for science religion is that science is the only truth period. why not muslims believe theirs is. most christians believe theirs is. in fact i cant think of any religion that doesn't think that their religion is the only truth.


oh wait. i do, i am a christian but i believe that all religions have truth in them and all religions have lies in them.


the problem is trying to decide which one has the most truth and the fewest lies.


in science this would be proving or disproving a theory.

[Wickian]

Mattshark, on 09 November 2009 - 02:37 AM, said:

It lacks a dogma to be a religion though.

It does if you think about it.

The sin - any carbon production

The tithing - carbon offsets, various tax schemes, and cap and trade

The doctrine - buy "green" products and support "green" agenda's to prevent "doomsday".

[The Silver Thong]

danielost, on 08 November 2009 - 09:34 PM, said:

the dogma for science religion is that science is the only truth period. why not muslims believe theirs is. most christians believe theirs is. in fact i cant think of any religion that doesn't think that their religion is the only truth.

Science is not a belief so believing does nothing except make science work harder After all we believed that the earth was the center of the universe however that notion was challenged by science and faith had to re-build around it. The simple fact that believers of any religion have the truth is through pure faith and very little science.

Dogma in science well ya when we get into bad science maybe.

[marabod]

The Silver Thong, on 10 November 2009 - 11:48 AM, said:

Science is not a belief so believing does nothing except make science work harder After all we believed that the earth was the center of the universe however that notion was challenged by science and faith had to re-build around it. The simple fact that believers of any religion have the truth is through pure faith and very little science.

Dogma in science well ya when we get into bad science maybe.

AGW is not a science for start, as science is based on rationality. If there was a decent mathematical proof of AGW, it sure would've been published widely, before the government policies start to be based on it! Instead of scientific evidence they present some fragmented indirect evidences, and in case of any doubts refer to some mysterious "world's leading Climatologists", despite such branch of science lacks any, what we call "school" due to its recent appearance, and is supported by scientific direct data for only 50-70 years; all the rest support comes from indirect sources and other sciences, where the data is taken out of the original context and reinterpreted at will. Once again, it is enough to point to this famous Vostok drilling samples, which was not mine example but THEIR one - CO2 grows with offset of few hundred years after temperature; natural explanation is the growth of vegetation, droughts and bush fires - but they invent "reverse influence" (800 years BACKWARDS) and thus prove the "dependency". This cannot be called "science", this requires the hidden vested interest OR a faith. Science reckons time goes only one way and is irreversible. How can alcohol, taken today cause hangover a week ago?

[The Silver Thong]

marabod, on 09 November 2009 - 05:26 PM, said:

AGW is not a science for start, as science is based on rationality. If there was a decent mathematical proof of AGW, it sure would've been published widely, before the government policies start to be based on it! Instead of scientific evidence they present some fragmented indirect evidences, and in case of any doubts refer to some mysterious "world's leading Climatologists", despite such branch of science lacks any, what we call "school" due to its recent appearance, and is supported by scientific direct data for only 50-70 years; all the rest support comes from indirect sources and other sciences, where the data is taken out of the original context and reinterpreted at will. Once again, it is enough to point to this famous Vostok drilling samples, which was not mine example but THEIR one - CO2 grows with offset of few hundred years after temperature; natural explanation is the growth of vegetation, droughts and bush fires - but they invent "reverse influence" (800 years BACKWARDS) and thus prove the "dependency". This cannot be called "science", this requires the hidden vested interest OR a faith. Science reckons time goes only one way and is irreversible. How can alcohol, taken today cause hangover a week ago?

Ok so what does this have to do with science as a religion? I know science developed the H1N1 vaccine and the religious arn't lined up at church doors looking for god to keep them safe from it. Even the vaccine has it's opponents in science hence a better understanding. Religion only changes due to outside interference where science changes due to new discoveries. Little new to be discovered in any religious book when it comes to science.

Science does not happen over night. It's not like writing a book where god tells you what to write lol. Of course science can be wrong however science is self correcting given it time to do so. religion is not. Every single piece of data we have on climate change could be wrong but it's a work in the right direction as sitting on or hands is probably the silliest idea.

[Mattshark]

marabod, on 10 November 2009 - 12:26 AM, said:

AGW is not a science for start, as science is based on rationality. If there was a decent mathematical proof of AGW, it sure would've been published widely, before the government policies start to be based on it! Instead of scientific evidence they present some fragmented indirect evidences, and in case of any doubts refer to some mysterious "world's leading Climatologists", despite such branch of science lacks any, what we call "school" due to its recent appearance, and is supported by scientific direct data for only 50-70 years; all the rest support comes from indirect sources and other sciences, where the data is taken out of the original context and reinterpreted at will. Once again, it is enough to point to this famous Vostok drilling samples, which was not mine example but THEIR one - CO2 grows with offset of few hundred years after temperature; natural explanation is the growth of vegetation, droughts and bush fires - but they invent "reverse influence" (800 years BACKWARDS) and thus prove the "dependency". This cannot be called "science", this requires the hidden vested interest OR a faith. Science reckons time goes only one way and is irreversible. How can alcohol, taken today cause hangover a week ago?

Have you read Nature and Science in the past 35 years?

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 10 November 2009 - 01:34 AM