Is Physics A Religion?

[OilIsMastery]

No, I do not know who that IS. If there is someone around by that name he probably has little to do with this topic anyway. But I do know of someone by that name who once existed. Perhaps that's who you mean and you simply don't know how to use verbs properly?:bugeye:

I stand corrected. You never will.

 

[Read-Only]

I stand corrected. You never will.

I will never what? Admit a mistake? Just so you won't remain ignorant forever, allow me to inform you that I've made mistakes here and openly owned up to them and apologized for my errors. So feel free to comment once you extricate your foot from your mouth.

 

[Enmos]

Alpha Rules:


But don't worry. Since you're an atheist it's doubtful these rules will be enforced. Forum rules don't apply to atheists.

I wouldn't go there if I were you..

 

[Nickelodeon]

Forum rules don't apply to atheists.

They are specific rules. Ask to have the title of this thread changed.

 

[DeepThought]

Apparently you've never heard of a Christian physicist. Do you know who Isaac Newton is?

OilIsMastery,

I have heard of Christian physicists although I am a bit confused about how such a physicist would reconcile the gradual erosion of a geocentric cosmos replete with miracles, angels and saints with the kind of empty, heliocentric cosmos modern physics has revealed.

Of course I know Newton was a Christian but its quite telling that he was a Unitarian and therefore not a believer in the muddled Holy Trinity.

 

[quadraphonics]

Bertrand Russell writes in Our Knowledge of the External World:


What's the difference between physics and religion?

Strictly speaking, statements about what would happen when nobody is around, etc. are not part of physics (although they may have been considered to be back in Bertrand Russell's time). Properly speaking, they're part of the philosophy of physics, not physics itself. This gets back to the Copenhagen Interpretation, where physics doesn't claim to know what's actually 'there,' but just to provide a reliable framework for predicting measurements.

 

[OilIsMastery]

OilIsMastery,

I have heard of Christian physicists

So one would hope.

although I am a bit confused about how such a physicist would reconcile the gradual erosion of a geocentric cosmos replete with miracles, angels and saints with the kind of empty, heliocentric cosmos modern physics has revealed.

Have you made any attempt to find out? Ever seen a Freeman Dyson interview?

http://meaningoflife.tv

The heliocentric model of the cosmos isn't modern. It's ancient and laughable. No one lives on the sun.

What a boring universe it would be without miracles. Of course real physicists witness miracles all the time. The universe itself is a miracle.

 

[spidergoat]

Physics makes factual claims all the time based upon assumptions and principles which by definition cannot be proven. In religion on the other hand we acknowledge our hypthesis is called faith not certainty. Religion is far more scientific than physics.

Faith is by definition certainty in the absense of evidence.

Please give an example of a factual claim in physics which by definition cannot be proven.

I think you are confusing speculation with religion. Doesn't religion cut off many types of speculation? If you are a Christian, isn't is unorthodox to speculate wether heaven is just an ideal rather than real?

 

[OilIsMastery]

Pff I just got an infraction for trolling.

I guess Christian mathematicians like Pascal, Newton, and Leibniz are trolls.

 

[Nasor]

Man, it's hard to believe this discussion is even happening. Have we all forgotten the definitions of English words?

"Religion" is a belief in divine/supernatural beings, forces, or realities.

"Physics" is the scientific study of matter and energy.

Okay?

 

[shalayka]

To me, blind faith in an omnipresent being is not much different than blind faith in unverified physical theory.

The similarity really hits home when we see the deliberate exclusion of an alternate omnipresent being/unverified physical theory by the self-appointed faith authority. Both are wonderful examples of how even the most "advanced" of human beings exhibit shamelessly prejudgmental behaviour.

 

[maxg]

Of course I know Newton was a Christian but its quite telling that he was a Unitarian and therefore not a believer in the muddled Holy Trinity.

He also believed in alchemy. Should we be trying to create the philsopher's stone?

 

[Read-Only]

Man, it's hard to believe this discussion is even happening. Have we all forgotten the definitions of English words?

"Religion" is a belief in divine/supernatural beings, forces, or realities.

"Physics" is the scientific study of matter and energy.

Okay?

Nasor, if he cannot even keep the tense of verbs straight, how can you possibly expect him to understand thigs that are even a bit more difficult?

He's doing nothing here anyway except throwing a few words around. This thread is a total waste and should be locked and cesspooled.

 

[Avatar]

To me, blind faith in an omnipresent being is not much different than blind faith in unverified physical theory.

The similarity really hits home when we see the deliberate exclusion of an alternate omnipresent being/unverified physical theory by the self-appointed faith authority. Both are wonderful examples of how even the most "advanced" of human beings exhibit shamelessly prejudgmental behaviour.

Check your definition for the word "theory".

p.s. This thread should be moved to another subforum.

 

[spidergoat]

To me, blind faith in an omnipresent being is not much different than blind faith in unverified physical theory.

The similarity really hits home when we see the deliberate exclusion of an alternate omnipresent being/unverified physical theory by the self-appointed faith authority. Both are wonderful examples of how even the most "advanced" of human beings exhibit shamelessly prejudgmental behaviour.

Physics doesn't work on blind faith. Even those with deeply held trust that their own theories are correct will happily concede when they are proven wrong.

As far as using what we have learned so far to evaluate the probability of any new theory, I don't think that's shameless. The idea of God as outlined in most religions is so unlikely as to be completely without merit.

 

[shalayka]

Check your definition for the word "theory".

p.s. This thread should be moved to another subforum.

Likewise; "string theory".

 

[shalayka]

Physics doesn't work on blind faith. Even those with deeply held trust that their own theories are correct will happily concede when they are proven wrong.

As far as using what we have learned so far to evaluate the probability of any new theory, I don't think that's shameless. The idea of God as outlined in most religions is so unlikely as to be completely without merit.

Unverified to be either true or false, my bad for not making that explicit.

 

[Avatar]

Unverified to be either true or false

So is the invisible pink unicorn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

 

[OilIsMastery]

Check your definition for the word "theory".

p.s. This thread should be moved to another subforum.

This thread asks a very specific quesiton about physics. Why should it be moved? And to where? It's specifically about physics.

 

[Avatar]

No, it's about whether something is religion, hence it should be moved to religion or philosophy subforums.