Thread: Religion,Science,.. What's next?

It seems the more we understand, the more we are in need of a new system to define these understandings. With all of the unexplainable discoveries in todays world.. do you think science is becoming out dated?

Originally Posted by mgraziii

It seems the more we understand, the more we are in need of a new system to define these understandings. With all of the unexplainable discoveries in todays world.. do you think science is becoming out dated?

Hello mgrazii,
1. Doesn't this belong in the philosophy section?
2. No. Science can never be out dated, as it's an objective, naturalistic field, unlike religion, with its subjectivity and metaphysical attributes.

The reason religion got thrown out as the explanation for natural events--that is, not to say it was completely gotten rid of--is that it's a supernatural explanation for natural events. Science, on the other hand, is a natural explanation based on empirical observations.

science was originally aimed at providing another strand (apart from the scriptures) of evidence for the glory of god

unfortunately, on closer examination it turned out that the 2 lines of evidence didn't match, so one of the 2 had to be thrown out - must people have plumped for science as the best explanation of natural events

so far i don't see any alternative world view waiting in the wings to take over, so not sure what is supposed to be the next thing after science

PS can a mod move this to the philosophy section ? it definitely doesn't belong under astronomy + cosmology
Edit: Moved as suggested. Ophiolite.

Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

The reason religion got thrown out as the explanation for natural events--that is, not to say it was completely gotten rid of--is that it's a supernatural explanation for natural events. Science, on the other hand, is a natural explanation based on empirical observations.

I don't think people picked science over religion for explaining natural events because science is empirical and religion is supernatural. People went with science because it's much better at making predictions that actually correspond to the real world. If two people got sick but one lived and the other died, a religious explanation might be that people prayed to for one of the sick people but not for the other. That's a supernatural explanation for a natural event, but people would be fine with it if they repeatedly found that they could cure people by praying for them. When a scientist comes along and says that one person lived and the one died because one took antibiotics and the other didn't, people will only believe that if they repeatedly see that people who take antibiotics when they get sick tend to live. It has reached the point today where most people give naturalistic explanations a lot more credit than supernatural explanations, but that's only because the naturalistic explanations have such a good track record of correctly predicting things while the supernatural explanations have such a bad track record.

Science is essentially about inquiry into the universe based on the scientific method. The scientific method is the best method (so far developed) of conducting said inquiry.

How we understand the results of these inquiries and their consequences to our human existence is to me where the realm of religion lies. First off when nature was aweinspiring and confusing our existence wasn't under our control and we get a god, as nature becomes less confusing and we gain the ability to influence it more we see the development of humanism. So religion is evolving in a much different and largely independant way from science imo.

science is a fluid process so can never be outdated

mgraziii,

What unexplainable discoveries?

1. The fact that we do not have an explanation now does not mean that we will not have it in a future. Therefore the adjective unexplainable is a bit too much.
2. This is the difference between scientific and supernatural approaches: the supernatural marvels, speculates and in some cases worships; the scientific researches, experiments and finds new things just to start again the process.

Best regards,

César

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

science is a fluid process so can never be outdated

never say never

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

science is a fluid process so can never be outdated

They said that about the Hotpoint Automatic washing machine in the 1960s, but you don't see any around today.

If science is "outdated", society would crumble. Without scientists, people would die of diseases, and live in complete discomfort. So the day science is 'outdated' is the day humanity as we know it no longer exists.

the fact that i can't see anything replacing science at the moment doesn't mean that at some time in the future no such replacement is possible

by what, i cannot say

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

science is a fluid process so can never be outdated

They said that about the Hotpoint Automatic washing machine in the 1960s, but you don't see any around today.

but were still using washing machines , and then whatevers better than that, its just a progression but its all still science


scientific ideas become dated as new things are learnt, but theres no reason for that not to carry on

"Primarily the pursuit and study of physical and material knowledge, particularly in a systematic and organized manner", thers no reason for this to not to carry on, unless we all become religious and give up

Science is an attempt to learn about the way the physical world works.

A major part of science is disproving things, this is the point of testing. you have an idea and you test it. you don't test to say how good you are, you test because you want to see if your idea was correct or not.

Usually ideas will suggest that something works in a certain way, and then testing the limits of those ideas you can see weather it does actually work like that or not.

This is infinatley variable and can be modified to change the methods used depending on what one is testing. Sometimes an old theory is found to not work under certain conditions after better tests, or more extreme conditions, cause the physical universe to act in a different way than someone thought it did. Thus making that idea "wrong" and so a new idea has to account all the original observations considered "right" and the new observations also correct.

Science will not be obselite, only occasional ideas found through older science will be found wrong, and then new measures to explain the real world will be sought.

The only way that science can be obselite is if the real world isn't real - or if the definition of the word science changes. Explaining reality through observation of reality is never incorrect. Even if it is against a society's law.

"There are 2 ways to travel between cities quicker;
1: Move faster
2: pray to god that you get there on time"

One is science, the other is just stupid.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

I don't think people picked science over religion for explaining natural events because science is empirical and religion is supernatural. People went with science because it's much better at making predictions that actually correspond to the real world. If two people got sick but one lived and the other died, a religious explanation might be that people prayed to for one of the sick people but not for the other. That's a supernatural explanation for a natural event, but people would be fine with it if they repeatedly found that they could cure people by praying for them. When a scientist comes along and says that one person lived and the one died because one took antibiotics and the other didn't, people will only believe that if they repeatedly see that people who take antibiotics when they get sick tend to live. It has reached the point today where most people give naturalistic explanations a lot more credit than supernatural explanations, but that's only because the naturalistic explanations have such a good track record of correctly predicting things while the supernatural explanations have such a bad track record.

And for all that, science becomes more like religion all the time. Every time any new phenomenon is observed, current day scientists grasp at straws looking for any way (however obtuse it may be) to explain it rather than just let it go unexplained for a while.

So, we end up with wild speculations like a Big Bang, and Dark Matter, and sometimes even other dimensions.

That's where religion came from. People saw amazing things, like existence itself, and they were willing to accept any answer anyone was willing to give, however crazy.

dark matter isn't wild speculation, its simply a name for stuff we dont know what is. its a thorn in the side of the physics we have today.

big bang is not wild speculation, but when it was first introduced, was viewed upon as such. but as time progresses, the big bang theory has gained momentum and weight, with all the overwhelming evidence.

2 reasons why big bang is a serious theory:

1: the universe is measurably expanding
2: microwave background radiation.

and the reason why there is dark matter is because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, telling scientists that something is not right with either the laws of physics, or possibly theres elements of the universe still left undiscovered.

I don't think he made the best examples, but I sort of agree with Kojax that sometimes certain people in science push things before the facts are out on them, behaving in a way much like the religious leaders that were expected to answer every perplexing question.

I'm not sure "science" can be replaced...unless you find some new way of learning other than the scientific method.

I suppose there's also the Bush method to learning, but I hear the brain damage is pretty hard-core...

Richard Dawkins is off again. His shrill attacks on unreason and dogma ignore the presence of those two factors within science itself. Science is a church with gods, saints, dogma – even an inquisition. It is quite possible for good scientists to be excommunicated and have their work suppressed by the “bishops of peer review et al”.
I have a strong suspicion that Dawkins, somewhere in his mind, knows the truth of the above, and draws his vehemence from a NEED to tell himself it isn’t true. But real scientist seek truth – above all – and no matter the mass of awards and positions held, Richard Dawkins proves himself a bad scientist by his UNREASONABLE AND DOGMATIC stance vis-a-vis science.
I would like to see Dawkins confronted (in a kindly way) by a psychologist (Oliver James?) and show the error of his ways. Perhaps you can arrange it?
Since writing this, I found a video clip where Dawkind declares the Big Bang more logical that God. I have them as a dead heat (or maybe background radiation).

I always have nothing but admiration for someone else who has seen through Dawkin's posturing self aggrandisment.
8)
Welcome to the forum.

since when was the universe governed by logic ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

since when was the universe governed by logic ?

Good point. But unfortunately there seems to be a lot of people in the SF who think science == math + human_logic.

It's a frustration I've grown weary of.

Originally Posted by mgraziii

It seems the more we understand, the more we are in need of a new system to define these understandings. With all of the unexplainable discoveries in todays world.. do you think science is becoming out dated?

We are often fooled into believing that history takes place in leaps and bounds. But look through a large book on the history of the world, and you'll see that what appear to be drastic developments of culture and differences of era actually morph rather slowly. Science did not simply show up on the civilised door-step begging to get in. It is an evolved form of thought off-shoot of religion. We still see many aspects of the primitive religion in science—just as, biologically speaking, we'd see parts of lower life forms in a more evolved life form. For example, both begin by asking a question. They continue by offering an answer (in science we call this supposed answer an ‘hypothesis’). Science goes a step further—much the same way a biological form is a few steps beyond its predecessor—by seeking empirical verification for this ‘guess.’

That being said, what is the most likely advancement to be made to the process of understanding? Let us not be naïve about this; science is unlikely to be the end all of things. Many religiously-minded folks have thought their thought processes to be the final development, and we've seen how they are wrong. So, I do not believe science will be the final say, though it has proven a powerful tool.

Let me introduce you all to the System. As it may one day be possible that we can store our brain's information and functionality on computer chips, our ability to understand could greatly increase. What is the System? The System is the grouping of interconnected brains that operate using technology similar to that of the Internet. When we operate our computers, we manipulate the data within them, building text documents, images, video games, etc. In a computer, and over computer networks, anything can be created, and anything can sustain, because we define the rules as we wish. Once our brains are uploaded onto computer chips, we will also exist in this world. Since our brains will be connected in every way to the System, zaps of electricity to the proper areas of the computer chip will permit the simulation of real-life stimuli (or ‘simuli’). These simuli can exist for all senses, including sight, and so our world can be zapped into existence. The same zap that causes you to see a burning fire will also cause you to sense its warmth—stimulating the same areas of your computer brain as if the fire were actually there stimulating your real brain (which rotted away 2,478 years ago). This is fine and dandy, because it essentially means we can live forever in worlds that do not exist, but that we think exist.

But then we are reminded of the other part, that ‘‘in a computer, and over computer networks, anything can be created, and anything can sustain, because we define the rules as we wish.’’ This means that we will not live in a virtual reality where we seek out the answers to the workings of the Universe around us, but rather in a virtual reality where we make up the answers as the questions are asked, and redefine our ‘reality’ as we do so. The next wave of understanding is to build our own realities, in a system constructed from the advancements of the scientific method; an evolved form—so it fits. Religion into Science, Science into the System.

This is the next wave of understanding.




Regards,
Rv. Jon