Scientists are not asking us to be their desciples - they are generally putting their stuff out there to share their own enthusiasm and knowledge and try to convey info in as entertaining and understandable way as poss to facilitate learning and enjoyment. At the same time they may question ideas of God in the context of creation v evolution to stimulate discussion and generate controversy. Controversies helps us to engage with the problems that confront us.
Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in
Naturally you would have evidence of scientists saying that science proves god doesn't exist?
I didn't say that, did I?
I said the scientists can use soemthing that science proves as showing that God doesn't exist ( in their opinion of course).
PSac, i follow your point completely, but then the statement is something to the effect of the scientific community (as an awfully poorly defined body of people, and hopefully not something which is defined to include fringe idiots on the internet) in their way of expressing existing knowledge (awfully poorly defined too, print, speech, journal articles, etc.) resemble the governing body which is wildly different in any aspect one can think of (organizational, how they derive knowledge, how open the process is, how unified, etc. etc.). The only point of meaningfull comparison, it seem, is that both sides sometimes alter their beliefs.
As you know, I have no problem with science and even scientists, far from that.
I just think that too many scientists like the media attention and like to make "bold statements" to garner said attention and that these individuals have NOTHING to do with science and their statements have very little to do with science.
Curtains, that was an interesting read. I see it when listening to arguments or debates between two very opposing sides... such as the fundy relgious person and the militant atheist. Two different languages in that case, certainly. Or of course between the two political parties in the States ;)
I'm thinking though, that the transference the author speaks of is really bias and/or arrogance. We could all learn from the 'opposite side', if we just put aside our bias and listen. We don't necessarily have to change our beliefs, but we could learn a little bit about them in listening openly to another view. I do think some people listen openly. Others might feel threatened , and so bias keeps them from hearing a different view, and has them instead tossing EVERYTHING that person says into the trash, for whatever reason they decide to have a personal disinterest in someonen with an opposing view. (crazy, evil, liar, stupid, etc)
We do hear those who speak our language better, though, than those who do not. Because we already have the basic understanding down.
Mind, i am simply asking for clarification. Could you give one solid example of a specific scientific idea in physics we are "supposed to believe", and some information of why you see the scientific community is trying to enforce that belief, and how?
No one is going to come lop your head off if you don't believe something in the scientific community. So you misunderstand if you think that is what I am saying. But you can be ridiculed, ostracised, looked down upon if you do not believe in the mainstream scientific findings... and if you are in school, then you can fail a subject.
I watched a show with Dawkins once, and he was interviewing some Christian school teacher who said that when he was a kid, he had been taught that the moon came out of the ocean or something like that. It was ridiculous, of course, but only because we know better now. But had he fought that, he'd have failed at the least. He was 'supposed' to believe it. (now Dawkins didn't deny what the guy had been taught... only saying that he should not have been taught it as fact... so I have no idea if people were ever taught that at any point in their lives)
We can also take evolution. We are supposed to accept evolution - or we can be ridiculed, ostracised, fail in school, etc. Even if you don't accept it as is, because there is so much that can change with any given finding, and there are still holes. The belief of those who do get it is that if you don't 'get' it, then you just don't understand it and need to study more. Because you are supposed to accept it.
Does the science say you have to accept it? I don't think the science cares one way or the other. The science just observes phenomena which the people then use to draw conclusions and theories. So, as Psac said (that is what I was trying to say as well; thanks for stating it so clearly), it is the people and followers who are often the problem, when there is a problem.
After all, if everybody supposed everybody should believe it existed, what is the purpose of building a huge collider to check if it is really there?
'Supposed' to believe it when the scientific community says, 'this is what we discovered, and this is what we believe it means'. If they're divided and uncertain, then why 'believe' anything? (although some who follow one court of belief over another, will ridicule and look down upon anyone else)
For that reason i have a very hard time understanding why you use such a loaded phrase as "new light". In order to use such a loaded analogy, there must be some very solid justification, otherwise it ring of trying to make a comparison which make a lot of people look more suspect than they really are by comparison.I don't understand why people have a hard time accepting this comparison. New light = new understanding on a subject previously accepted as fact/truth, due to new evidence/truths being discovered/revealed.
The earth used to be flat. New light made it round.
The sun used to evolve around the earth. New light made the earth revolve around the sun. (anyone who went against the previous truths were ridiculed/ostracised, until they could prove their assertions)
The difference is that new light in science is based on observable discoveries. (though the interpretation of those discoveries could be lacking) Whereas in religion, it is rarely observable by all, and could just be something someone is making up to cover their tracks for having previously been wrong.
The similarity is that what is known right now is the truth... until such a time as new light (new understanding and/or discoveries) changes or adds to that.
Please dont refer me to a fringe section of the internet who have desided you are "supposed to believe" some pet idea, clearly such people (who are fringe to the scientific community) does not justify a comparison between science (as a whole) and new light.
I have no idea what any fringe sect of anything says. Truly. If I really wanted to know something (to the point where I would change my life, or outlook on life), I would have to study the science myself, and not take anyone's (including a scientist's) word for it. Or at least, I would have to be able to observe it myself. Like I'm not going to jump off a 100 story building, because I know I'll fall due to law of gravity ;)
Caedes - I know there are differences between science and religion. Big ones, too. Just because someone points out a couple similarites (as the question asked for that), doesn't mean that person does not see the differences.
It is best to think of change in formulas or equations or theory as simply giving a more accurate or complete answer. If I told you I have a house or I told you I have a house with three bedrooms and a garage, which answer is correct? They both are, it is just that one is a more complete answer. Giving a more complete answer doesn't make the simpler answer wrong.
What you describe above is something that adds to a previous understanding without changing it. But there are also complete changes in understandings that can occur that is not the same thing at all. Flat earth/round earth, for instance. I know that we think we're the most enlightened because we have better tools to observe the world/universe around us. This is true, even. But what kinds of things are we going to learn a thousand years from now that makes what we have now look as backwards as the flat earth theory?
Some things accepted as true and fact now could be completely wrong too. We are just infants trying to understand a universe (s), and barely brushing the tip if it.
More emphasis could be place on 'this is what we know now', imo.
In the religious search for "truth" or "fact", science should be an ally . . . not an adversary.
Yes, but the two are too much at each others throats. Or the disciples of each are too much at each others throats, anyway... perhaps thinking if one of them gives just a little, then they'll be wiped out completely.
The big mouths don't have much respect within the field. Hundreds of thousands, if not more, scientists labor without much pay, in their field and in multidisciplinary fields. The Bell Labs, MIT, Cal Tech, international consortiums. Medical schools. Drug research. UN finances programs. Doctors without Borders. We know so few of these scientists.
Science seeks to discover how the universe works including our world. It does this by applying scientific method and accepts that there is no end to discovery.
Most religions do not seek to come to conclusions but have already arrived at a forgone conclusion based on an ancient holy book accepted by their sect or personal revelation. Belief does not require work of any kind.
Scientists are required to put in years of hard work and be prepared to accept that they may never arrive at an absolute position. They are not promised life after death and do not worship as a requirement.
To me science and religion are two entirely different mindsets. The only thing they have in common is that they both require people to be involved and that's where the confusion lies.
The problem with science is the same problem with religion:
Science makes no statement, people do.
One of the smartest things ever posted here.
Yes, but the two are too much at each others throats. Or the disciples of each are too much at each others throats,
Well if that's a multi-choice question I'll pick B.
There are plenty of religious detractors who will use science to attempt to show the flaws of religious belief. But seldom do I ever see this with bona-fide scientists or the science community as a whole (whatever you consider that to be).
I honestly don't believe that there is a significant element within the science community that is motivated to dis-prove religious dogma . . . it's simply a convenient side-effect which those with an anti-religious agenda use to their advantage. But don't place such ones within the science community or present them as representative . . . because that would in fact be a total misrepresentation.
Some religious apologists will eagerly do this . . . in effect creating a non-existent adversary, purely to progress their own agenda. The WTB&TS did so continually. Most of the scientists they mis-quote are totally unaware of their religious arguments . . . and are unlikely to give a damn.
Science will progress unaffected by the various religious dogma's . . . unfortunately religion cannot afford that same luxury in the face of scientific progress. So who really has the agenda? . . . the one with something to lose, that's who.
The problem with science is the same problem with religion:
Science makes no statement, people do. . . . PSacramento
One of the smartest things ever posted here. . . . botchtowersociety
I would say it's one of the dumbest actually. It's a total over-generalisation that says people are responsible for science and religion so they must have the same problem . . . utter bunk. And if anyone thinks thats clever . . . I wish you luck in whatever you choose to believe henceforth . . . you're going to need it.
sizemik: Science will progress unaffected by the various religious dogma's . . . unfortunately religion cannot afford that same luxury in the face of scientific progress. So who really has the agenda? . . . the one with something to lose, that's who.
That point is worth repeating.