Jump to content
zaji

The New Religion

Recommended Posts

These hallowed elitist  institutions of higher learning were Christians in name only.  Founded during slavery, they were not examples of people who practiced what Christianity preached when it came to the golden rule. They were hypocrites.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The were Christian in Origin. The religion not the principal. Religion (belief )has been linked to Science. 

Rupert Sheldrake has made the case that Science acts more like religion. Hence censorship not debate. They feel debate is below their lofty ideals. I say that is the approach of the he arrogant elite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del science and religion have nothing to do with each other -- nothing.  Cynique raises some good points to counter the assertion.

 

Scientists and science are open to change indeed dramatic revision when someone proves a previous belief is wrong.  Everyone accepts the new information and everyone moves on. 

 

Scientists debate all the time were they are discussing somethings for each there is no proof.  Religions are not open for debate blind faith is what you must have. 

 

Of course you can start your own religion which happens all the time. Mormonism, NOI, Jehovah Witness, Scientology, Branch Davidian, etc.  Saying science is like a religion is just plain silly.

 

I need to listen the the whole Sheldrake lecture to better understand where you (and perhaps Sheldrake) are coming from.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del

Excellent point about so many of the universities in the United States being founded as religious institutions!!!



 

 

Cynique

 

What god does science worship? What science does religion preach?


Western science is DRENCHED in ancient Greek religion and religious philosophy:

Doctors in the science of medicine take the oath of HIPPOCRATES....an ancient Greek deity.

The science of GEOLOGY gets it's name "geo" from Gaia a Greek deity.

If you look at the science of astronomy, many of the planets (Mars and Jupiter) and many of the space craft (Apollo) are named after ancient Greek deities.

These are glaring examples of religion and mythology mixed with science.

Cynique, do the right thing and admit that you were WRONG about science never being espoused to religion....lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1 I make a distinction between "God" and "gods"; between "religion" and "myth", between "Christianity" and "Paganism".  Apparently you can't bring yourself to fine-tune your view on this subject.

 

i was who first  used the word "espouse." and this is what i had in mind when i said science never espouses religion.   

 

Definition of espouse: adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life): This definition does not describe science's  position on religion. BC/AD is a single isolated convenience, not a  doctrine. 

 

And your giving your blessing to Del's observation about America's universities doesn't negate the extenuating circumstances  which were pointed out by Troy and me. Christian is, as Christian does. 

 

This is a subject which has many aspects.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Del I reject your last statement about my arguing from ignorance.  I was expressing what I knew about a subject and was merely informing you that I could not speak to Sheldrake's opinion, because I know nothing about him and have not watched the video. 

 

Obviously you have integrated his beliefs into yours, so I figured I need to at least watch the video to better understand where you are coming from.

 

@Pioneer1, the naming of things have nothing to do with how science is practiced.  If you look at the names of some of the heavy elements;  Americium, Berkelium, or Californium does this mean science worships the western United States? 

 

You, like Del, are reaching to to make a flawed argument that science is like a religion, because you two, for different reasons, have an axe to grind against science.  I suspect Del dislikes science because it dismisses his strongly held belief in astrology and you because you've somehow associated science with white racism.

 

But, Pioneer if you want to conflate modern science and greek mythology go right ahead I don't want to confuse you with reality.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Peer Review in the Sciences [nothing that follows are my words. i have copied and pasted all items you read below and researched all quotes.]


Richard Horton, then editor of The Lancet, contributed a guest editorial for the Medical Journal of Australia (Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion and crack-up; MJA 2000; 172: 148-149) in which he wrote:

 

"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Today Science is up on a pedestal. A new god has appeared; his high priests conduct the rituals, with nuclear reactors, moon-probing rocket ships, cathode tubes and laser beams. And their territory is sacrosanct; laymen are denied entry.  – Bruce Cathie

In truth, the systemic failure of peer review is one of science’s major, embarrassing open secrets.
As Dr David Kaplan tells us, “[P]eer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.”
Australian physicist Brian Martin elaborates in his excellent article Strategies for Dissenting Scientists:
Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked.

Electric universe researcher and Big Bang critic Wal Thornhill (a REAL scientist) stated plainly in our GFM Media interview that the peer review system amounts to censorship. Fellow independent scientist Gary Novak agrees scathingly:

 

“Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts…There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process.”

Writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in May 2000, Canadian-based researcher, David Sackett, said that he would “never again lecture, write, or referee anything to do with evidence based clinical practice,” over his concern that “experts” are stifling new ideas. He wants the retirement of experts to be made compulsory and I think it’s a brilliant proposition.

 

Sackett says that “…progress towards the truth is impaired in the presence of an expert.”

Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, where she spent twenty years poring over scientific papers, saturated in the dubious practices that pervade the world of medical research. She states bluntly:

 

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

David Kaplan, a professor of pathology at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, has stated that,

 

“Peer review is broken. It needs to be overhauled, not just tinkered with. The incentives should be changed so that: authors are more satisfied and more likely to produce better work, the reviewing is more transparent and honest, and journals do not have to manage an unwieldy and corrupt system that produces disaffection and misses out on innovation.”

Dr. Marc Girard, a mathematician and physician who serves on the editorial board of Medicine Veritas (The Journal of Medical Truth), has written,

 

“The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants — collecting money and spending it — than to scientific imagination or creativity.”

In general, peer reviewers — generally not time-rich — don’t try to replicate experiments and rarely even request the raw data supporting a paper’s conclusions. Who has the time for all that? Thus, peer review is, according to Richard Smith writing in Peer Review in Health Sciences,

 

“thought to be slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting gross defects, and almost useless for detecting fraud.”

—

What about fake peer review? This is where the corrupt and abysmal becomes the theatre of the absurd. For example, Berlin-based Springer Nature, who publishes the aforementioned Nature journal announced the retraction of 64 articles in 10 journals in an August 18th statement in 2015. This followed an internal investigation which found fabricated peer-review write-ups linked to the articles.

 

The purge followed

 

“similar discoveries of “fake peer review” by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing “reviews from fabricated reviewers”.

 

Yes, that means reviewers that don’t exist — recommended as “reviewers” by the people submitting their work for review. Imagine writing a paper and being able to nominate a non-existent person to review your work, and the contact email supplied to the publisher for this purpose is actually one you made up, which routes the paper back to you (unbeknownst to the publisher), so that you can then secretly carry out a (favourable) review of your own work under a pseudonym!

Recently two scientists performed a brilliant Sokal-style hoax on the journal Cogent Social Sciences. Under the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay wrote a deliberately absurd paper loosely composed in the style of “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” — what exactly that is they made no attempt to find out.

 

The authors tell us:

 

“The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions…We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.”

 

And they did. After completing the paper, and being unable to identify what it was actually about, it was deemed a success and ready for submission, which went ahead in April 2017. It was published the next month after some editorial feedback and additional tweaking. To illustrate how deliberately absurd the paper is, a quote is in order:

 

“We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations… and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change.”

 

In plain English, they (seemingly) argued here that a penis is not a male sexual organ but a social construct; the “conceptual penis” is problematic for “gender (and reproductive) identity,” as well as being the “conceptual” driver of climate change. No, really. How this ever got published is something to ponder. The paper is filled with meaningless jargon, arrant nonsense, and references to fake papers and authors.

 

As part of the hoax, none of the sources that were cited were even read by the hoaxers. As Boghossian and Lindsay point out, it never should have been published. No one — not even Boghossian and Lindsay — knows what it is actually saying.

Almost a third of the sources cited in the original version of the paper point to fake sources, such as created by Postmodern Generator, making mock of how absurdly easy it is to execute this kind of hoax, especially, the authors add, in “‘academic’ fields corrupted by postmodernism.”

In April 2010, Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, used a computer program called SCIgen to create 102 fake papers under the pseudonym of Ike Antkare. SCIgen was created in 2005 by researchers at MIT in Cambridge in order to demonstrate that conferences would accept such nonsense…as well as to amuse themselves.

 

Labbé added the bogus papers to the Google Scholar database, which boosted Ike Antkare’s h-index, a measure of published output, to 94 — at the time, making Antkare the world’s 21st most highly cited scientist.

 

So a non-existent scientist has achieved the distinction of being one of the world’s most highly cited authors — while “authoring” papers consisting of utter gibberish. Congratulations are certainly in order. In February 2014 it was reported that Springer and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), were removing over 120 such bogus papers from their subscription services after Labbe identified them using his own software.

 

Going back at least as far as 1996 journalists and researchers have been getting spoof papers published in conferences or journals to deliberately expose weaknesses in academic quality controls. “Physicist Alan Sokal (of the famous Sokal Affair) succeeded in the journal Social Text in 1996,” while Harvard science journalist John Bohannon revealed in a 2013 issue of Science that he had duped over 150 open-access journals into publishing “a deliberately flawed study.” Bohannon organized submission of the flawed study (technically, many different but very similar variations of the study) to 304 open access journals worldwide over a period of 10 months. 255 went through the whole editing process to the point of either acceptance or rejection.

 

He wrote:

 

“Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.”

 

The hoax paper was accepted by a whopping 157 of the journals and rejected by only 98. Of the 106 journals that did conduct “peer review,” fully 70% accepted the paper.

 

If peer review was a transparent and accountable process, according to Gary Novak,

 

“there might be a small chance of correcting some of the corruptions through truth and criticism; but the process is cloaked in the darkness of anonymity…Due to the exploitive and corrupt process, nearly everything in science has official errors within it…[A] culture of protecting and exploiting the errors creates an official reality which cannot be opposed.”

 

Returning specifically to the arena of (mainstream) medicine, a quote in PLoS Medicine, states:

 

“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way”…Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians, and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry”.

 

In the words of John Ionnidis, “Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.”

If most studies are wrong, and most scientists are more interested in their own careers and funding than getting at the truth — while journals daily allow bogus and flawed pharmaceutical research to be published and promoted — then why would anyone in their right mind believe the claims made by doctors about the efficacy of products based upon “peer review” or pharmaceutical “studies”? What does a term like “safe and effective” even mean in this world of deception and subterfuge?

— 

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. — Richard Horton, Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 11 April 2015, thelancet.com (Horton is editor of The Lancet)

 

All the above items, as stated, I had nothing to do with writing. I merely copied and pasted all the above items and researched the validity of the quotes. Below are links to some additional items I found, for your edification.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/fake_peer_review_scientific_journals_publish_fraudulent_plagiarized_or_nonsense.html 


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798  (good read)

 

A line from the NCBI piece: “People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/science/science-journal-pulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/nov/08/fraud-revolution-scientific-publishing-peer-review 


http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dozens-scientific-papers-withdrawn-probably-more-come 


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

 

ADDED (Center for Accountability in Science article): https://www.accountablescience.com/peer-review-process-scientific-publications-trouble-paradise 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zaji  reading some of these comments about peer review reminds me of my original comment about religion. that it requires obedience.   It's like scientists are being shunned for not obeying.  Even if they find evidence the  alleged constant is in question.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading.  Yet, when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry, i've always been rather puzzled by all of their dire warnings in regard to the side effects of taking  certain medications.  Especially on TV commercials.  I'm  left thinking "the cure is worst than the disease", after the voice-over has recited a litany of dangerous possibilities when taking the drug being advertised. Consumers are not exactly in the dark about "Big Pharm". 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Troy said:

m sorry Del I reject your last statement about my arguing from ignorance.  I was expressing what I knew about a subject and was merely informing you that I could not speak to Sheldrake's opinion, because I know nothing about him and have not watched the video. 

You can reject my statement but you are wrong on addition to being ignorant. You admit not watching it so you have no first hand knowledge of what he said. That's is the definition of ignorance @Troy.

2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

@zaji  reading some of these comments about peer review reminds me of my original comment about religion. that it requires obedience.   It's like scientists are being shunned for not obeying.  Even if they find evidence the  alleged constant is in question.  

Look up the history of the Steady State Scientist and how the Big Bang Theory got its name.

@zaji I will read this later. People assume that scientist stop having beliefs and opinions when practising science. 

Michelle Simmons emigrated to Australian because she felt the scientific community was more open than the United States or England. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 okay @Delano tell me what I'm "wrong" about.

 

Repeating and copying what write entirely  unnecessary. For example, I already know I have not seen the video, telling me the definition of ignorant is just condescending, and less than what i'd expect from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎28‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 2:11 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Del

Excellent point about so many of the universities in the United States being founded as religious institutions!!!



 

 

Cynique

 

What god does science worship? What science does religion preach?


Western science is DRENCHED in ancient Greek religion and religious philosophy:

Doctors in the science of medicine take the oath of HIPPOCRATES....an ancient Greek deity.

The science of GEOLOGY gets it's name "geo" from Gaia a Greek deity.

If you look at the science of astronomy, many of the planets (Mars and Jupiter) and many of the space craft (Apollo) are named after ancient Greek deities.

These are glaring examples of religion and mythology mixed with science.

Cynique, do the right thing and admit that you were WRONG about science never being espoused to religion....lol.

Very good points Pioneer. The days of the week and even the calendar are a product of keeping religious rituals.

John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher,[5] and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination, and Hermetic philosophy. He was also an advocate of England's imperial expansion into a "British Empire", a term he is generally credited with coining.[6]

Dee straddled the worlds of modern science and magic just as the former was emerging. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery.

 

 

In antiquity, Pythagoras was credited with many mathematical and scientific discoveries, including the Pythagorean theorem, Pythagorean tuning, the five regular solids, the Theory of Proportions, the sphericity of the Earth, and the identity of the morning and evening stars as the planet Venus. It was said that he was the first man to call himself a philosopher ("lover of wisdom")[Notes 2] and that he was the first to divide the globe into five climatic zones. Classical historians debate whether Pythagoras made these discoveries, and many of the accomplishments credited to him likely originated earlier or were made by his colleagues or successors. Some accounts mention that the philosophy associated with Pythagoras was related to mathematics and that numbers were important, but it is debated to what extent, if at all, he actually contributed to mathematics or natural philosophy.

Mystical teachings

Another belief attributed to Pythagoras was that of the "harmony of the spheres",[90] which maintained that the planets and stars move according to mathematical equations, which correspond to musical notes and thus produce an inaudible symphony.[90] According to Porphyry, Pythagoras taught that the seven Muses were actually the seven planets singing together.[91] In his philosophical dialogue Protrepticus, Aristotle has his literary double say:

When Pythagoras was asked [why humans exist], he said, "to observe the heavens," and he used to claim that he himself was an observer of nature, and it was for the sake of this that he had passed over into life.[92]

Isaac Newton's occult studies

English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton produced many works that would now be classified as occult studies. These works explored chronology, alchemy, and Biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse). Newton's scientific work may have been of lesser personal importance to him, as he placed emphasis on rediscovering the occult wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, some[1] believe that any reference to a "Newtonian Worldview" as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.

 

@Pioneer1

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cynique said:

I make a distinction between "God" and "gods"; between "religion" and "myth", between "Christianity" and "Paganism".  Apparently you can't bring yourself to fine-tune your view on this subject.

 

i was who first  used the word "espouse." and this is what i had in mind when i said science never espouses religion.   

 

Definition of espouse: adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life): This definition does not describe science's  position on religion. BC/AD is a single isolated convenience, not a  doctrine. 

 

 @Del  You and Pioneer are standing on  shaky ground, depending on your smugness to support you, totally unaware of how transparent you are. LMAO

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

 okay @Delano tell me what I'm "wrong" about.

 

Repeating and copying what write entirely  unnecessary. For example, I already know I have not seen the video, telling me the definition of ignorant is just condescending, and less than what i'd expect from you.

Do you have knowledge of the video. No you are ignorant. So you are arguing from an ignorant position. You can agree or disagree at this point.

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june-2016/features/science-not-conflict-religion

 

My contention is that, ultimately, the existence of a deity is a question of science. Some may be surprised by this because they recognize that science is the systematic study of phenomena in the natural world while religious belief deals with the supernatural, or powers and entities outside the spectrum of what we would consider our natural reality. Yet this is not the case. All religions, particularly the “big three” Abrahamic religions, make claims about the natural world that clearly fall under the purview of one or more fields of science

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go repeating the same info... 

 

@Delano, surely you understand that video is not the only or definitive source of information on this subject? 

 

As far as your last statement the existence of God this is certainly not a question for the adherents of a given religion. 

 

What scientist, in their right mind, would try to prove the existence of Zeus, or any other diety, or even think that is a good idea? 

 

Is this an idea you got from the video? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/02/2018 at 10:55 AM, Troy said:

 

I need to listen the the whole Sheldrake lecture to better understand where you (and perhaps Sheldrake) are coming from.

That would behelpful in the discussion.

 

9 hours ago, Cynique said:

 @Del  You and Pioneer are standing on  shaky ground, depending on your smugness to support you, totally unaware of how transparent you are. LMAO

I have no idea what you  are referring to Cynique. Can you provide a quote to give some context.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Deli don't remember.  i'm sure i had a good reason.  Probably something to do with the "high-fives" between you and Pioneer  in your attempt to alternate religion with mythology in an effort to prove that science idolizes Greek and Romans gods.  Don't bother with a response because i'm sure  no minds will be changed on this subject.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del I astonished that you would yet again repeat what I wrote.

 

If your only contribution to this conversation is continuing to ignore direct questions, parroting what I previously wrote, and telling me watch a video, that TED did not see fit to keep published, then I guess we are at an impasse. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Cynique actually my mind was changed...Not about religion or science but my approach to the discussion.  I didn't even think I was subconsciously considering this discussion until I got a message from the universe about it this morning.

 

For me, this has been one of our most important discussions.  It has taught me the difference between use, practice and properties.  As usual we all come from different angles in the discussion and expect to convince the other we're right but - It appears we are all blindfolded touching an elephant and doing our best to describe what we feel through our biases.  

So, what's different about this topic?  I really don't know but it shed light for me. 

The message from the universe was this:

 

"When someone tells what something is for or how to do something - your mind begins to shut down on other applications -"

 

Yep that's what the universe told me this morning.   

The message woke me up and I wrote the following:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve used paper bags to set and curl my hair.  That doesn’t mean paper bags are its intended design and incorporated in its daily use. Setting my hair with paper bags is my practice and possibly the practice of other women.   However, a paper bag was designed as a disposable container.  Yet its properties allow us to find other uses...

 

The days of the week, months were not a religious discovery or creation.  If no one ever assigned a label to it or decided its uses; nothing would change because the moon comes up at night and the sun rises in the morning - and its positioning to the earth changes.

 

In our early human existence, pagans observed the moon phases and suns cycles for natural events - irrigation, gestation, birth, harvesting. reaping, sowing, etc.  This was even before any mythology was created.   Before there was mythology there was observation, some Africans threw in counting based on the moon phases and they came up with a base 7 mathematics.   Today we call it science, but the other wiser species and animals simply live within it -

 

all this activity was going on 100s of thousands of years before priests installed political systems and put themselves at the top of the food chain.  This was before they tricked people into believing natural occurrences were controlled by a god or gods.

 

So returning to Pioneer’s crude statement about African science vs western science and its relationship to turd and pizza -  It's akin to sheldrake's quip about some observers (scientists) building further observations based on the unknown (first cause).   

 

Now an interesting dynamic to this conversation for me was the fact that each of us were told to think a certain way and each of us brought this thinking to the discussion and it’s those beliefs that shut down our ability to create a new use from nature's properties. 

 

Once again discourse has cast its spell on us.  I think it has our entire community spellbound

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The days of the week are named after God's in 70% of languages spoken. The rest are ordinal significations 

If a child grows up in a religious environment this will have an effect. The same could be said for a university a city or a culture. 

 

That doesn't mean the recipients of religious indoctrination will be better people. Yet religious exposure will effect them.

Some scientists or thinkers had religious beliefs. Some scientist were persecuted for the scientific positions by religion. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Delano said:

Yet religious exposure will effect them.

 

@Delano , yes that's what was revealed in this conversation - we've all been indoctrinated one way or another...and some of us were able to shake it off  like @Cynique  The rest of us are stuck namely you, me and @Pioneer1.  If we don't shake it off we will remain stuck.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins that's eerie that you would cite an example similar to one i had just been thinking about myself last night, in regard to the 3 blind men touching an elephant, which one described as having rough skin and the other described as having a tail, while the last one insisted it had tusks; all 3 were telling a truth that was influenced by their sense of feel.  Everybody does have their own truth when it comes to a body of truth.  In this discussion,  the goal seems to be prove whether science encompasses religion.

 

I say that If a religious person makes a discovery and is credited with this, then his religion is besides the point.  Pioneer claimed  the Hippocratic  oath was an example of science adopting religion. But Hippocrates was as an ancient Greek physician, not  a religious figure. Serindipity was what inspired scientist and Isaac Newston's  theory about gravity, not his religion.    Science is about proven fact, religion about blind  faith.  Mythology is about fictional gods and gave rise to Paganism , whereas the Bible purports to be true accounts  about real people.  The Pantheism which believes all things in nature  are connected is a spiritual philosophy, not a religion.  This is my mind-set,  and actually we are, in deed, all affected by our mindsets.   

 

Mel, i absolutely love your anecdote of using brown paper bags to roll your hair up as an ingenious example of "making do",-  with using what's available because -  you do not have another choice at hand. 

 

12 minutes ago, Delano said:
On 2/27/2018 at 4:29 PM, Cynique said:

   What god does science worship?  What  science does religion preach?

Statistics and proof

Religion preaches statics and proof ?  Science has blind faith? i disagree.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cynique said:

.  In this discussion,  the goal seems to be prove whether science encompasses religion.

Not for me. It is to demonstrate their similarities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i made the statement that science didn't "espouse" religion and that is at the core of my responses. 

 

What is similar about science and religion when it comes to "statistics and proof"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake.  Statistics is the God science worships. And proof is the religion of science.

9 hours ago, Troy said:

Del I astonished that you would yet again repeat what I wrote.

 

If your only contribution to this conversation is continuing to ignore direct questions, parroting what I previously wrote, and telling me watch a video, that TED did not see fit to keep published, then I guess we are at an impasse. 

 

 

 

You said to Pioneer that you wouldn't discuss a topic because he didn't read the source material. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The founder of the scientific method was not only religious. He sought to use science to increase faith in God. 

 

You can say the are mutually exclusive and religion/spiritual belief doesn't enforce science. There are scientists that disagree. 

Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)[1] was considered an insightful and erudite theologian by his contemporaries.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tractsdealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.[5]

 

During 1667 Newton was a Fellow at Cambridge,[12] making necessary the commitment to taking Holy Orderswithin seven years of completion of his studies. Prior to commencing studies he was required to take a vow of celibacy and recognize the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[

matter.[14] Of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica he stated:[15]

When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the beliefe of a Deity and nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it useful for that purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Del Thank you for  familiarizing me the religious persuasion of Isaac Newton.  An equally brilliant scientific mind in the modern day world in the person of Stephen Hawking is an atheist.

 

1 hour ago, Delano said:

My mistake.  Statistics is the God science worships. And proof is the religion of science.

Mistake is right. That's a questionable metaphor.  What religion do you know of that corrects itself and changes its dogma over a period of time because it is constantly making new discoveries?   And what science does religion pay homage to?    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 7:48 PM, Delano said:

Look up the history of the Steady State Scientist and how the Big Bang Theory got its name.

@Delano  both are theories - not law  so I put those two theories in the metaphysical category such as Aether, String, Multi-dimensions etc. ...There is no proof just experiences - which can't be proven.  And I'm ok with that.

On 3/1/2018 at 8:51 PM, Delano said:

He sought to use science to increase faith in God

also that's flat out dumb on his part.  If something can be proven there's no need for faith. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2018 at 6:39 PM, Cynique said:

 that's eerie that you would cite an example similar to one i had just been thinking about myself last night, in regard to the 3 blind men touching an elephant, which one described as having rough skin and the other described as having a tail, while the last one insisted it had tusks; all 3 were telling a truth that was influenced by their sense of feel

 

@Cynique  now see this is  similar to what Sheldrake talks about with his morphic resonance theory. 

What if I did pick up on your thoughts and it was you who spoke to me while I slept... There's no way to test it.  However, the fact that there was an occurrence ( and I don't believe in coincidences)  there's more going on in nature than we really know.  Maybe we shouldn't put it in the science category because there's no instrument to "test" it. 

Maybe this is what people speak of when they say keep an "open mind"  There are people I shut down and shut out immediately.  I believe stupid is contagious, Yet, I have no proof .  Doesn't matter to me though, I shut out people who prove to be stupid. 

 

I especially don't listen to talk radio because I don't want to tune into that frequency.  

You are wise,  so my mind is open to sharing your perspective and learning from your experiences.  So maybe I can actually "hear" you.   Maybe I tune into frequency such as yours and others who I believe I can learn from.  Maybe I can hear people like you all the time even when you're thinking. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

@Delano  both are theories - not law  so I put those two theories in the metaphysical category such as Aether, String, Multi-dimensions etc. ...There is no proof just experiences - which can't be proven.  And I'm ok with that.

also that's flat out dumb on his part.  If something can be proven there's no need for faith. 

@Mel Hopkins that's not the point I am arguing. I am a bit surprised because you haven't understood my statement. Look up how the Big Bang got its name. @Troy

2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:
On 02/03/2018 at 12:51 PM, Delano said:

He sought to use science to increase faith in God

also that's flat out dumb on his part.  If something can be proven there's no need for faith. 

@Mel Hopkins a lot of scientist would agree with you. They also felt his studies of alchemy were a waste of time. He had a religious motivation and he was using occult techniques which informed his work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel That is so deep!  I did not realize that a phenomenon  i vaguely suspected existed,  had a name.  Your morphic resonanace explanation enlightened me!  You give me more credit than i deserve. i am steady learning from you and others here who supply me with the names of ideas that have been rambling around in my mind over time; i am the pupil who was ready for  teachers to appear. And you have.  You all have put many of my metaphysical quirks into words. To me, this also has elements of reincarnation.  Sometime i shock myself with the things i say  off the top of my head, using myself as an authority.  This is not to say that these are always proven to be factual, but i think they do have something to do with saved memories from another incarnation of myself because they are "opinions" that i didn't even know i had.   And this is what tends to make me stand by some of them.  

 

 

5a9af4eb06bbb_universevibe.jpg.cf2488351167e448a649187711ff503b.jpg  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mel Hopkins said:

@Delano  both are theories - not law  so I put those two theories in the metaphysical category such as Aether, String, Multi-dimensions etc. ...There is no proof just experiences - which can't be proven.  And I'm ok with that.

@Mel Hopkins you are arguing a point from ignorance  and you are wrong. Instead of trying to inform you or rather asking you to inform yourself, I will post the reasoning why. @Cynique @Troy @Pioneer1 @zaji

 

 When Einstein created his theory of general relativity, early analysis showed that it created a universe that was unstable — expanding or contracting — rather than the static universe that had always been assumed. Einstein also held this assumption about a static universe, so he introduded a term into his general relativity field equations called the cosmological constant, which served the purpose of holding the universe in a static state. However, when Edwin Hubble discovered evidence that distant galaxies were, in fact, expanding away from the Earth in all directions, scientists (including Einstein) realized that the universe didn't seem to be static and the term was removed.

 

(There is an apocryphal story that they came up with the theory after watching the film Dead of Night, which ends exactly as it began.) Hoyle particularly became a major proponent of the theory, especially in opposition to the big bang theory. In fact, in a British radio broadcast, Hoyle coined the term "big bang" somewhat derisively to explain the opposing theory.

 

So it is not a theory that any reasonable person would hold since it runs counter to the known facts. The other bit is the Steady State Theorist called the opposition the Big Bang in order  to ridicule the opposition. The irony is that the Steady State theorist were wrong. So they were name calling and wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps there is a universal resource that we can all tap into to.  

 

Often when presented with a problem I can not solve, like some technical aspect dealing with this website.  I simply stop wracking my brain over it, and let the answer come to me.  The answer will seemingly put itself into my head without consciously thinking about it.  Nowadays, I whenever a solution does not come to me right away I just let it go, confident an answer will present itself.

 

I guess this is what people mean when they say, "let me sleep on it."

 

Now scientist may say that my brain unconsciously continues to work on the problem.  A Christian may say that God provided the solution.  A new age spiritualist  might say I tapped into the universal consciousness.

 

I generally equate God with that universal consciousness.  Of course religious people would reject this notion.

 

@Delano yes the currently held belief, in the scientific community, is that universe is expanding and that the expansion is increasing.  However, no one can explain why.  The apparent anti-gravity forcing the universe apart is called "dark energy."  But again no one knows what this stuff is. We just have theories.  In light of this, it is not clear to me why you are rejecting Mel's statements by writing "...you arguing a point from ignorance  and you are wrong"  or what the Big Bang has to do with any of this?

 

 

Side bar: Hey @Mel Hopkins did you know that Arno Penzias (mentioned in one of the articles Del linked to), spoke at our high school graduation?  He graduated from Tech :-)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del you have a long history of responding to my direct questions by ignoring them all together or responding with a question.  So while I'm accustomed to this from you it does make it more difficult to understand where you are coming from. 

 

Again I ask, for what reason did you reject Mel's statement of about theories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Troy said:

Perhaps there is a universal resource that we can all tap into to.  

 

Often when presented with a problem I can not solve, like some technical aspect dealing with this website.  I simply stop wracking my brain over it, and let the answer come to me.  The answer will seemingly put itself into my head without consciously thinking about it.  Nowadays, I whenever a solution does not come to me right away I just let it go, confident an answer will present itself.

 

I guess this is what people mean when they say, "let me sleep on it."

 

Now scientist may say that my brain unconsciously continues to work on the problem.  A Christian may say that God provided the solution.  A new age spiritualist  might say I tapped into the universal consciousness.

 

I generally equate God with that universal consciousness.  Of course religious people would reject this notion.

That is a very tasty morsel.

11 minutes ago, Troy said:

Del you have a long history of responding to my direct questions by ignoring them all together or responding with a question.  So while I'm accustomed to this from you it does make it more difficult to understand where you are coming from. 

 

Again I ask, for what reason did you reject Mel's statement of about theories?

The reason I do that is to make certain we are starting from the same page. So while you may find it annoying I am tryin to ascertain your position. I didn't think it required any explanation. Steady State Theory is not a position being held because of Background Microwave Radiation. So to say that the Steady State and The Big Bang Theory are two theories is not correct. 

 

So I am not certain why you are asking why I am saying Mel is wrong. Since to me it is obvious. And I thought you knew that Steady State is no longer a credible theory. This is also why I post definitions. It is not about saying that is the only defintion, it demonstrates explicitly what I am trying to communicate. So that the conversant can see the fundamental difference in our position. Which is also why I argue usage and seemingly minor points. I want to understand precisely what someone is saying. Or close enough to feel that we can have a discussion. However I think I will jettison that approach. Based on the failure of said technique.

 

I will be parsimonius going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×