Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is religion merely failed science?

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    techman1
    Registered Users Posts: 706 ✭✭✭techman1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118243181#Comment_118243181

    In every area of science, there are presumptions and theories but those don't mean anything until they are actually proved by experiment and hard evidence. The most famous theory of the 20th century the theory of relativity is only famous and only a fact because it has been proved experimentally and was realised in reality.

    The theory that there must be intelligent life out simply because of the sheer size of the universe and the widely accepted theories that everything started by chance and was just random. However none of this has been proved conclusively by science and probably will never be. Einstein himself did not believe that reality and the universe all happened by chance. His famous retort to this "God does not play dice"

    Also enrico Fermi one of the Manhattan projects chief designers of the atomic bomb and the physical realisation of the theory of relativity was the guy who asked "where is everybody", his question remains unanswered



  • Options
    #153
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250099#Comment_118250099

     Einstein himself did not believe that reality and the universe all happened by chance. His famous retort to this "God does not play dice"

    the key word being "believe". he wasn't speaking as a scientist.



  • Options
    #154
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250099#Comment_118250099

    The theory that there must be intelligent life out simply because of the sheer size of the universe and the widely accepted theories that everything started by chance and was just random. However none of this has been proved conclusively by science and probably will never be. 

    It's the casual and incorrect use of the word "theory" above that leads to people like SouthWesterly dismissing the (scientific) theory of evolution as "just a theory." There isn't a scientific theory that there must be intelligent life out there - it's "just" a hypothesis, based on the number of stars, the number of those observed to have planets orbiting them, the number of those that appear to be in their stars' goldilocks zone, etc., and in all likelihood it will remain as just a hypothesis for many years.



  • Options
    #155
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,060 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    That Einstein quote is (as usual) taken completely out of context, it was in relation to quantum mechanics not creationism. Also Einstein did not believe in a theistic god.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #156
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,060 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118248545#Comment_118248545
    Untitled Image


    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    techman1
    Registered Users Posts: 706 ✭✭✭techman1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250382#Comment_118250382

    I agree with you, yes it is a hypothesis and it is a theory however it is widely promoted as a fact and is actually a rarely questioned hypothesis now. That is the area where science or rather the commentariat has over stepped the mark.

    Yes it is a valid hypothesis that there is intelligent life out there due to the sheer size of the universe and the probability of earth like planets

    However it is also an equally valid hypothesis that we are alone because we should have encountered that intelligent life many times throughout history.

    None can be proved but the complete lack of evidence for the first hypothesis means that the second one should be the predominant one as the only way to prove the first is to actually discover this "theoretical life"

    Newton's classical mechanics laws held sway for 200 years until the theory of relativity was proved.

    With the hypothesis that life must exist in outer space we are in effect saying that the theory of relativity replaces Newtonian mechanics with zero proof. This is the mistake of modernism



  • Options
    #158
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,060 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I think you're confusing pop-science with science there.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #159
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,833 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    And if you're trying to make an argument for religion, you have already killed it, because religion is also a hypothesis no? There's no proof?



  • Options
    #160
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Creationism is not an answer to unexplained phenomena. In essence it suffers from being circular reasoning. One example. If you proposed that all phenomena must of been due to a creator (ie, god), then the same argument could be applied to the creator; who or what created the creator? Then who created the creator who created the creator; in a continuous circle of illogical reasoning.



  • Options
    #161
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118247604#Comment_118247604

    One of many differences between scientific theories and methods compared with religious belief systems is that science only suggests explanations to phenomena, based upon empirical generalizations from the analysis of data; science is evidence driven, whereas religion is based on faith not requiring empirical data and analysis.

    Your guesswork comments above suggest that you do not understand the content or contexts or complexities of theories, or how they relate to science, the scientific method, or to discovery and innovation. The fact that theories, science, and the scientific method only suggest explanations to phenomena is a strength which you fail to comprehend.

    Furthermore, when testing scientific hypotheses deducted from theories scientists by convention do not test the research hypotheses (what the HR predicts); rather, the null hypotheses are tested, and only if the analysis of data demonstrates significant differences are the nulls rejected and the research hypotheses supported.

    This contrasts with many religious belief systems whereby the so called religious truths are not tested in the null form as if they may be in error; rather they are believed as an article of faith without question and generally lack the test of empirical data that may or may not suggest support.

    Furthermore, most of these so called religious truths suffer from repetitious affirmations, repeated by unquestioning believers as an article of faith. Whereas, science proceeds with caution, allowing for an open mind to discovery, inventions, and new technological innovations, all of which are subject to revision or falsification. Compared with religious dogmas that are above question by believers and may not be subject to tests of potential falsification.

    Personally and anecdotally, I would suggest that if not for the suggestions and cautions of science, and the inventions and technological innovations derived from scientific discoveries, as well as being open minded to unexpected serendipitous findings, we would still be in the dark ages, or perhaps even worse, having not advanced beyond a 2000 or more ancient religious belief system that is generally adverse to anything that may question their so called truths.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    SouthWesterly
    Registered Users Posts: 6,517 ✭✭✭SouthWesterly


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118254627#Comment_118254627

    Trying to compare religion which I've no time for and science is utter fallacy.

    Your trying to compare a scientific method and results to faith and experience. It can't be done.

    As for your thinking we don't proceed with caution and question what we're told or read. Maybe I'm the exception.



  • Options
    #163
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,226 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118203259#Comment_118203259

    I am assuming that you are in some way drawing today’s hypothetical argument from something written in the 2nd Testament of the Bible?

    What objective, empirical data do you have to support that rising from the dead occurred, other than as an anecdotal article of faith? Or if the biblical person was in fact dead, and not affected by some other medical condition that may have been unknown to persons living over 2000 years ago, but known today, with medical treatments to revive the patient?

    This is an epistemological question of how do we know what we know? Such a question addresses the OP, and may help differentiate between religious and scientific based posts.



  • Options
    #164
    techman1
    Registered Users Posts: 706 ✭✭✭techman1


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118253935#Comment_118253935

    No I'm making an argument against the theory that everything started by chance randomly. This is what underpins modern thinking and modernity. It is put up there on a pedestal, that there is no meaning behind anything and that the wonderful ordered universe we have which is governed by natural laws is not random. The mysterious numbers like Pi that crop up everywhere in nature and throughout the universe could not have happened randomly. That was essentially Einstein's belief.

    There could be no existence or no anything without those fundamental physical laws that can't be broken



Advertisement