Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

48. Actually, unless I am reading this wrong, he does draw a distinction between

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:11 PM

Nov 2012

Stonehenge and LHC. He says that if, say, aliens landed and saw both, they might assume they were both religious symbols of some sort. But, they would be able to figure out the LHC and replicate what it is supposed to do. In doing so, they could ascertain that it was a scientific instrument and replicate what it was originally used for.

The difference, then, is that we can probably never know that about Stonehenge or the pyramids and, therefore, have to assume that they had some kind of significance beyond science. Or did they?

The argument from ignorance is, I agree, false. But I don't overtly reject the god of the gaps.

While neither you nor I may agree with this author, it is one of the more interesting things I have read lately and a good conversation starter. I am really glad you joined in.

Do you have an inordinate interest in religion, my friend?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

147 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The dictionary is wrong � science can be a religion too [View all] cbayer Nov 2012 OP

Pretty standard human behavior; change the definition to fit the times so as to stay relevant. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #1

That's what human brains do, put a different set of how-tos on it & you have science. The point of patrice Nov 2012 #30

For the most part, yes. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #31

Looks as though we just decided, below, that we're not going away. Later. patrice Nov 2012 #36

nothing but word games. science cannot be a religion. bowens43 Nov 2012 #2

His argument is that the definition needs to be changed/expanded. cbayer Nov 2012 #4

All is in process/negotiation and I seem to be a verb > how is at least as important as what. patrice Nov 2012 #14

It is the essence of science that it is not-religion/ous, so to that extent, through negation of patrice Nov 2012 #22

Science is subject to rapid and often radical changes Warpy Nov 2012 #3

OTOH, sometimes the rigidity of certain scientific beliefs can impede scientific progress. cbayer Nov 2012 #5

"radical change in science is particularly slow to be accepted or embraced" trotsky Nov 2012 #6

Way to build an inherently flawed argument. TalkingDog Nov 2012 #15

What? trotsky Nov 2012 #43

Plate tectonics. SheilaT Nov 2012 #102

Thanks, but that's not the point. trotsky Nov 2012 #104

Gosh. You're going to use your own definition of SheilaT Nov 2012 #105

Gosh, no I'm not. trotsky Nov 2012 #106

You need to educate yourself before spouting such nonsense skepticscott Nov 2012 #108

I'd still like one of these people to establish the standard of Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #147

not particularly slow, however DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #128

Oh, please..tell us how Lord Kelvin's skepticscott Nov 2012 #131

the fact that Lord Kelvin could say that DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #140

Nice try at BS skepticscott Nov 2012 #141

Look here DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #144

Thank you for confirming there's nothing "particularly slow" about scientific progress. trotsky Nov 2012 #133

eh? DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #138

Yes, humans are a interesting bunch. trotsky Nov 2012 #139

Thomas R. Kuhn says that rigidity is actually part of the dynamic of scientific revolutions. patrice Nov 2012 #18

Challenge "destroys" and/or strengthens. nt patrice Nov 2012 #23

Please be specific as to.. rexcat Nov 2012 #34

We will see no response. trotsky Nov 2012 #44

I knew she would not respond... rexcat Nov 2012 #55

"Radical change" in science skepticscott Nov 2012 #60

Your desire for "dialogue" is exposed as bogus...yet again skepticscott Nov 2012 #111

Yeah... history doesn't bear out your statements. It "can" happen that way. TalkingDog Nov 2012 #9

Excellent post. I really like this writer's takes on areas where the lines get cbayer Nov 2012 #11

I doubt your statement Confusious Nov 2012 #51

If "history is rife with examples" skepticscott Nov 2012 #61

Apparently I was right skepticscott Nov 2012 #64

Of course you were. trotsky Nov 2012 #69

And wow...do the religionists and apologists here have no shame skepticscott Nov 2012 #71

Still waiting for those examples skepticscott Nov 2012 #96

"Somehow"? How the hell can you say "somehow they are not guilty of faulty thinking..."? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #136

Wow...guess history wasn't as rife as you pretended skepticscott Nov 2012 #142

Too many believe in scientific facts without understanding them. DetlefK Nov 2012 #7

My college had a science requirement, of course, which many who were cbayer Nov 2012 #8

THANK YOU! see my post above. TalkingDog Nov 2012 #10

Yes! If we don't understand the HOW of something, how can we know its significance? patrice Nov 2012 #17

IOW, as polling just so clearly illustrated, significance is way more than a statistical formula(e). patrice Nov 2012 #19

String-theory.->"Strings" that "vibrate".->Sound is a vibration.->You can heal a person.... AlbertCat Nov 2012 #77

Mathematically formalized as Tarski's Undefinability Theorem bananas Nov 2012 #99

Form and content. rrneck Nov 2012 #12

and also: "how" is not just what steps, but the order of those steps themselves is a manifestation patrice Nov 2012 #32

Form follows function. Mostly. rrneck Nov 2012 #37

Agree. The lines are not also that clear. cbayer Nov 2012 #38

I've always liked that one . . . for the DOING of it. patrice Nov 2012 #41

Utter rubbish argument. longship Nov 2012 #13

He would agree that using the OED definition of religion, science could not be classified as cbayer Nov 2012 #16

Well, you may be able to predict my response. longship Nov 2012 #21

You are making his point for him in your first paragraph, don't you think? cbayer Nov 2012 #24

Maybe only his premise. longship Nov 2012 #45

What to you constitutes an inordinate interest in religion? cbayer Nov 2012 #46

Thanks! longship Nov 2012 #47

Actually, unless I am reading this wrong, he does draw a distinction between cbayer Nov 2012 #48

I listen to the Bible Geek podcast every week. longship Nov 2012 #50

That's stupid, aliens would most likely instantly recognize the LHC for what it is... Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #52

These attempts are typically an effort to "absorb" non-belief/atheism/science. trotsky Nov 2012 #59

Just a note to myself here to follow up on demarcation problems, later, I am doing laundry & stuff patrice Nov 2012 #39

Thanks. longship Nov 2012 #49

Two of the Most Prominent Writers on Belief Systems, On the Road Nov 2012 #20

Thank you for this. Time to go find Eric Hoffer in a stack of crates of books around here somewhere. patrice Nov 2012 #25

I like the idea of a reading list and even a book club kind of approach. cbayer Nov 2012 #27

I would support that by getting one of my own suggestion + someone else's suggested book on my patrice Nov 2012 #35

Never Read Albert North Whitehead On the Road Nov 2012 #62

He makes the point that there was likely ritual and dogma before there was religion. cbayer Nov 2012 #26

true a belief in god is evidence of a gullible personality choice Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #28

What is a "gullible personality choice"? cbayer Nov 2012 #29

Which god? What's a god? IF there were such a thing that could be called a "G/god" would we patrice Nov 2012 #33

using language one may talk about all sorts of fictional entities Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #40

There are none who live off of the lives of others? Would NOT exist were it not for that? patrice Nov 2012 #42

who decides when a miracle is supernatural and when its not? Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #57

Total bullshit based on buildings Confusious Nov 2012 #53

Science and math are not faith TrogL Nov 2012 #54

well to be fair Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #56

add even though math is abstract it doesnt require faith though Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #58

I'm not sure he really understands what science is. Bradical79 Nov 2012 #63

Scientism is a religion without a god. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #65

Please show your definition for "scientism" and "religion". TrogL Nov 2012 #66

It really doesn't need to be explained. humblebum Nov 2012 #67

'impressionism' was a perjorative term that Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #68

Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. The word is widely used and has an defined meaning. humblebum Nov 2012 #70

The word "unicorn" skepticscott Nov 2012 #73

You must be really, really bored, SS. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #75

Outing liars is my new hobby skepticscott Nov 2012 #76

"Outing liars is my new hobby" and lying is your old one. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #80

I'll out you again skepticscott Nov 2012 #81

Well I guess such a list would be ridiculously long and go back quite a ways in time, but humblebum Nov 2012 #84

Epic fail skepticscott Nov 2012 #85

Now you are admitting that there are other ways of knowing again. humblebum Nov 2012 #88

It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to ... AlbertCat Nov 2012 #78

You have already intimated that there are indeed humblebum Nov 2012 #79

No, I've intimated that some lame folk CLAIM skepticscott Nov 2012 #82

Those so-called "lame folk" are those who don't share your very narrow point of view. You humblebum Nov 2012 #83

No, those lame folk skepticscott Nov 2012 #86

SS. You are truly the spin master. humblebum Nov 2012 #87

Ah, I see skepticscott Nov 2012 #89

And you plainly have nothing. But at least we have established that there humblebum Nov 2012 #90

But at least we have established that there are indeed other ways of knowing AlbertCat Nov 2012 #92

You appear to be the epitome of scientism by considering humblebum Nov 2012 #93

Repeating the same unsubstantiated bullshit over and over skepticscott Nov 2012 #94

Show me where i have actually mouthed those words. However, when humblebum Nov 2012 #95

the epitome of scientism AlbertCat Nov 2012 #97

The subject of Other Ways of Knowing has been hashed and rehashed countless times here humblebum Nov 2012 #98

they do exist and are given credibility by many. AlbertCat Nov 2012 #100

Nothing biased about your line of thought LOL. humblebum Nov 2012 #101

Religion is a made up word, too. AlbertCat Nov 2012 #109

Don't hold your breath skepticscott Nov 2012 #110

Don't hold your breath AlbertCat Nov 2012 #112

So who poo poos science? I use and rely on it on a regular basis. It is humblebum Nov 2012 #115

No one has ever, in the history of the world, claimed skepticscott Nov 2012 #117

So no one has ever made an attempt to establish a unified theory of science? Interesting. humblebum Nov 2012 #121

As predicted skepticscott Nov 2012 #116

And I see you are lying as usual right on schedule. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #122

Prove it skepticscott Nov 2012 #132

Not too sure exactly what you are waiting for, but happy waiting. All anyone needs do humblebum Nov 2012 #137

Been addressed by quite a few more than just myself. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #114

Been addressed by quite a few more than just myself. AlbertCat Nov 2012 #119

Like I said, look it up for yourself. Subject's been discussed ad nauseum in the group. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #113

have difficulty grasping AlbertCat Nov 2012 #120

So who decides what is real and what is not? If the limits of your reality are humblebum Nov 2012 #123

If the limits of your reality are that which can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched/felt AlbertCat Nov 2012 #124

Who is attacking science? No one. humblebum Nov 2012 #125

Who is attacking science? No one. AlbertCat Nov 2012 #126

Just how is scientism an attack on science? humblebum Nov 2012 #127

I think the problem is this, "Scientism" as it were, seems to be a term that was... Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #72

Expect bummy to jump in here with his usual lie skepticscott Nov 2012 #74

And like clockwork, he does skepticscott Nov 2012 #118

Actually, the"soft" sciences use the same methodology, the Scientific Method, and humblebum Nov 2012 #130

But not the same rigor, because its not possible, either due to practical or ethical concerns... Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #134

You sound like there is some organized conspiracy to appear as something that they are not and humblebum Nov 2012 #135

Dude, seriously. 2ndAmForComputers Nov 2012 #145

Almost anything CAN be treated as a religion LeftishBrit Nov 2012 #91

Perhaps there should be a separate thread, SheilaT Nov 2012 #103

Isn't that the truth. And some, but not enough, do *good deeds* as well. cbayer Nov 2012 #107

let's be careful DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #129

...and if my granmother had nuts, she'd be my grandfather Taverner Nov 2012 #143

Having read the blogpost I can say nonsense intaglio Nov 2012 #146