Science is a religion.

[Only_]

4 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

No, there really aren't. You're dividing science into groups that don't exist so you can reject scientific findings when they don't suit your worldview.

I'm not dividing anything. I said there is science, this method, a tool for investigating the natural world, and the fanatics that claim that science proves beyond doubt their atheistic, materialist worldview. That is the premise of scientism. But I certainly think you may be in denial.

.

.

Edited October 25, 2017 by TruthSeeker_

[Emma_Acid]

12 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

fanatics that claim that science proves beyond doubt their atheistic, materialist worldview. .

Here's the rub, and this is why proponents of the paranormal and spiritualism divide science into two groups. Science, conducted under the scientific method, does not support the existence of the paranormal or spiritualist concepts. There is no evidence, no framework for investigation, and no positive experimental results.

This infuriates the spiritualists and paranormalists, who instead divide the scientific method into two halves, one of which - "materialist science" - they claim cannot hope to answer these questions in the first place. I have had hours of conversation over this on these forums, but never a satisfactory answer as to why the scientific method cannot study these areas, other than "ghosts are hard to pin down". Yeah, well, so are neutrinos, and we study them fine.

In short, this is an argument about 'standard of evidence'. Evidence for the paranormal (blurry photos, cold rooms, anecdotal evidence etc) disappears when you apply proper scientific rigor to it. Subsequently, this field of science is labelled "materialistic" and rejected, all because paranormal phenomena remain unproven. 

It is this attitude that is labelled as "scientism". 

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Here's the rub, and this is why proponents of the paranormal and spiritualism divide science into two groups. Science, conducted under the scientific method, does not support the existence of the paranormal or spiritualist concepts. There is no evidence, no framework for investigation, and no positive experimental results.

This infuriates the spiritualists and paranormalists, who instead divide the scientific method into two halves, one of which - "materialist science" - they claim cannot hope to answer these questions in the first place. I have had hours of conversation over this on these forums, but never a satisfactory answer as to why the scientific method cannot study these areas, other than "ghosts are hard to pin down". Yeah, well, so are neutrinos, and we study them fine.

In short, this is an argument about 'standard of evidence'. Evidence for the paranormal (blurry photos, cold rooms, anecdotal evidence etc) disappears when you apply proper scientific rigor to it. Subsequently, this field of science is labelled "materialistic" and rejected, all because paranormal phenomena remain unproven. 

It is this attitude that is labelled as "scientism". 

Did those neutrinos exist before science could study them? Yes. 

[stereologist]

I see there is some misunderstanding on particles. All, not some, but all things whether energy or matter are composed of particles. This is a well accepted concept for a century of scientific study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle

The wave only idea is insufficient to explain observations.

 

[stereologist]

Science is not a religion. Unlike a religion science can change. Unlike a religion the concepts are based on observations and not beliefs. Religion demonizes heretics and science embraces heretics. Scientific heretics include Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Hawkings, etc. All of the famous scientists are heretics.

Some people think religion and science were once the same. Not true. When dogmatic beliefs are the driving force then there is no science. When people rely on their opinions instead of checking their ideas there is no science.

It is true that there are areas where science cannot provide information. Ethics and morals exist outside of science. Pure belief concepts such as god lie outside of science. There are plenty of things that are outside of the scope of science revealing that science is not a religion. This does not prevent science advocates from treating it like a religion or anti-science proponents from pretending that it is a religion for all those interested in science.

[Illyrius]

The problem with science is that it is not comfortable with a notion that there are maybe some other states of consciousness (and thus a higher reality) which surpase the Duality of ordinary human mind, and thus it only stays in a limited reality analogue to this allegory.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Will Due]

29 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Unlike a religion science can change.

Religion changes too.

It evolves according to the new concepts as they are progressively revealed.

This is evident in the Bible. The God concept evolved from Yahweh, the tribal God of the Hebrews during the days of Moses to the highest concept of God yet, the Universal Father, the loving Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also our Father.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Will Due

[stereologist]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

The problem with science is that it is not comfortable with a notion that there are maybe some other states of consciousness (and thus a higher reality) which surpase the Duality of ordinary human mind, and thus it only stays in a limited reality analogue to this allegory.

It is not a matter of comfort. Science is based on observations. One of the difficulties is to remove the observer from the observation. It is easy as often demonstrated that people think things exist that do not exist. The idea of a higher reality is an unobserved idea. It is a belief. Science is not about beliefs.

The cave of shadows story is not really applicable to just science. It is applicable to the entire human experience including the non-scientific ideas.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

The cave of shadows story is not really applicable to just science. It is applicable to the entire human experience including the non-scientific ideas.

I agree completely.

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Religion changes too.

It evolves according to the new concepts as they are progressively revealed.

This is evident in the Bible. The God concept evolved from Yahweh, the tribal God of the Hebrews during the days of Moses to the highest concept of God yet, the Universal Father, the loving Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also our Father.

I was not referring to the appearance of new religions or cultural change such as offering mass in the vernacular. I was referring to the core beliefs of religion that are static.

[Crazy Horse]

11 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Religion changes too.

It evolves according to the new concepts as they are progressively revealed.

This is evident in the Bible. The God concept evolved from Yahweh, the tribal God of the Hebrews during the days of Moses to the highest concept of God yet, the Universal Father, the loving Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also our Father.

 

 

And its going through another change, evolution right now.

From this notion of God being separate from us, the idea that we need a priesthood, and that we only have to believe in a God.

To us and God being one indivisible Being, from a priesthood, to taking back responsibility and from believing in God to knowing God too.

 

Its not so much an new God but more an expanded One.

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I was referring to the core beliefs of religion that are static.

Yes I understood that.

When religion becomes static, it's not religion anymore.

 

Quote

But true religion is alive. Intellectual crystallization of religious concepts is the equivalent of spiritual death. You cannot conceive of religion without ideas, but when religion once becomes reduced only to an idea, it is no longer religion; it has become merely a species of human philosophy.

- The UB 

 

 

 

[Illyrius]

8 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Its not so much an new God but more an expanded One.

Perhaps just a little correction over here. God is always the same One. But as our consciousness evolves we change (or more precisely - expand) our Theology accordingly.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Crazy Horse]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Perhaps just a little correction over here. God is always the same One. But as our consciousness evolves we change our Theology accordingly.

You are right, I did mean that it was our consciousness that was expanded. Not God.

Thanks for pointing that out. 

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

And its going through another change, evolution right now.

From this notion of God being separate from us, the idea that we need a priesthood, and that we only have to believe in a God.

To us and God being one indivisible Being, from a priesthood, to taking back responsibility and from believing in God to knowing God too.

 

Its not so much an new God but more an expanded One.

I agree.

When you take a hard look at what happened to Jesus and why he was murdered, you see that it was because what he revealed, that God was our Father the same as he was Jesus's Father, and that he wants us to know that our relationship with our Father is direct because he is dwelling within us all, that we don't require the false authority of the priesthood to interfere with this relationship we have by default with the divine; the priests got nervous about their livelihood and killed him, thinking that would take care of their problem of having to look for a real job.

 

 

[stereologist]

54 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Yes I understood that.

When religion becomes static, it's not religion anymore.

You haven't met the fundamentalists have you? Lots of religions are static in their core beliefs.

[stereologist]

48 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I agree.

When you take a hard look at what happened to Jesus and why he was murdered, you see that it was because what he revealed, that God was our Father the same as he was Jesus's Father, and that he wants us to know that our relationship with our Father is direct because he is dwelling within us all, that we don't require the false authority of the priesthood to interfere with this relationship we have by default with the divine; the priests got nervous about their livelihood and killed him, thinking that would take care of their problem of having to look for a real job.

A new religion was formed around an event, real or not, that still has a static core belief.

[Crazy Horse]

36 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I agree.

When you take a hard look at what happened to Jesus and why he was murdered, you see that it was because what he revealed, that God was our Father the same as he was Jesus's Father, and that he wants us to know that our relationship with our Father is direct because he is dwelling within us all, that we don't require the false authority of the priesthood to interfere with this relationship we have by default with the divine; the priests got nervous about their livelihood and killed him, thinking that would take care of their problem of having to look for a real job.

 

 

Indeed.

Jesus was considered a heretic, a blasphemer by the established priesthood. But His message wrung loud and clear. The people tried it and they found it to be good. The Empire was loosing its grip on controlling the masses, no pun intended. And so they co-opted and corrupted instead.

I don't often sight scripture but theres a first time for everything.  "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" KJV.

Today, the same thing would happen. 

All Spiritual change starts with blasphemy.

 

[Will Due]

20 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You haven't met the fundamentalists have you? 

Lol. Oh yes I have! 

 

21 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Lots of religions are static in their core beliefs.

Yes that's very true.

But true religion is never static. Because it's kinetic, personal and unique, based on faith alone, that is otherwise blasphemous as Crazy Horse pointed out. But true in the experience of contacting the divine within directly.

Without priests, without doctrine, and without group authorization nor approval.

 

 

[stereologist]

Just now, Will Due said:

Lol. Oh yes I have! 

 

Yes that's very true.

But true religion is never static. Because it's kinetic, personal and unique, based on faith alone, that is otherwise blasphemous as Crazy Horse pointed out. But true in the experience of contacting the divine within directly.

Without priests, without doctrine, and without group authorization nor approval.

True religion?  Oh please name some true religions and some not true religions.

[Will Due]

28 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

 

All Spiritual change starts with blasphemy.

 

This is so true. And rather paradoxical.

 

 

[Will Due]

Just now, stereologist said:

True religion?  Oh please name some true religions and some not true religions.

True religion is individual, not organizational. There are as many true religions as there are people in the world. 

 

 

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

True religion is individual, not organizational. There are as many true religions as there are people in the world.

My definition of true religion is different than yours. Yours is as acceptable as mine. Thanks.

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

My definition of true religion is different than yours. Yours is as acceptable as mine. Thanks.

I'm curious. How do you define true religion?

 

 

[stereologist]

Just now, Will Due said:

I'm curious. How do you define true religion?

Any of the religions based on traditional belief. This leaves out the Scientologists, Neo-American church, my church of the great outdoors, the FSM, The Church of Bob the Subgenius, and so forth. I do not think much of the "religions" that appear to tax scams, excuses to do drugs, fun light hearted mirth, pretend (like mine).

I'm pretty religious tolerant. I pray if others ask me to. I think the traditional religions are in general good institutions be they worldwide or restricted to a village. We can always find bad things just as we can find bad people. There are always those that do evil  in the name of a religion. But I d  not think of that as the norm for religions.

cheers