It most certainly does NOT! It asks about pseudo-physics - as physics was perceived several hundred years ago. Yes, it should be moved - to the cesspool where all such foolishness belongs!
Is Physics A Religion?
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
It most certainly does NOT! It asks about pseudo-physics - as physics was perceived several hundred years ago. Yes, it should be moved - to the cesspool where all such foolishness belongs!
Bertrand Russell is a pseudophysicist? Well, he is an atheist so I guess you might have a point.
Yet another error in tense! Are you not aware that he no longer IS - since he died over 37 years ago?!?!?:bugeye:
They should rename this Atheist Forum. I came here looking for science and all I found was hatred.
I'll see you haters never. Last post. Talk about braindrain.
I'll see you haters never. Last post. Talk about braindrain.
Hasnt changed much since last you were here IAC.
I'd sure like to get physical with Goddess Physics.
It's called "paraphrasing". You answered the question "What isn't verifiable?" by suggesting that spidergoat read the OP, which only claims that physics makes some unverifiable hypotheses without giving any specific examples. I was hoping you wouldn't need this explained to you.
Last edited:
OilIsMastery:
Religion is based on faith. Physics is based in evidence.
Well, that was easy.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, but a somewhat unorthodox one. He spent a lot of time investigating Alchemy, for example.
Your conclusion is an incorrect generalisation from a specific premiss. All that follows from your first statement is that the untestable hypotheses are speculative - not the whole of physics.
Do you believe the internet exists?
It couldn't exist without fairies, could it?
No it doesn't.
Religion is based on faith. Physics is based in evidence.
Well, that was easy.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, but a somewhat unorthodox one. He spent a lot of time investigating Alchemy, for example.
Your conclusion is an incorrect generalisation from a specific premiss. All that follows from your first statement is that the untestable hypotheses are speculative - not the whole of physics.
Do you believe the internet exists?
It couldn't exist without fairies, could it?
No it doesn't.
Facial
Valued Senior Member
A religion is characterized by faith or belief in a some sort of spirit or spiritual energy, which are utterly non-tangible but influences everything tangible in the material world.
Physics is a science, or rather the foundation of most science. It examines the tangible influences of the material world, and hypothesizes tangible influences.
The difference between physics and science is human common sense.
That is, a hypothesis, no matter how intangible it may resemble to the souls, spirits, et cetera of religion, it would definitely be tested for validity. On the other hand, once such an intangible hypothesis is tested, religion insists that something else is behind it, and that 'something' is truly intangible and unable ever to be tested.
It strikes me as ironic that many self-proclaimed religious people would try to lump science as a religion, because if it was, then the existence of God, for example, would have to be tested eventually. And wouldn't it scare them to death at the slightest chance that their mightiest force in the universe were to be demonstrated wrong through the power of reason?
Physics and religion are two very different aspects of the human experience. The American Physical Society says so too.
Physics is a science, or rather the foundation of most science. It examines the tangible influences of the material world, and hypothesizes tangible influences.
The difference between physics and science is human common sense.
That is, a hypothesis, no matter how intangible it may resemble to the souls, spirits, et cetera of religion, it would definitely be tested for validity. On the other hand, once such an intangible hypothesis is tested, religion insists that something else is behind it, and that 'something' is truly intangible and unable ever to be tested.
It strikes me as ironic that many self-proclaimed religious people would try to lump science as a religion, because if it was, then the existence of God, for example, would have to be tested eventually. And wouldn't it scare them to death at the slightest chance that their mightiest force in the universe were to be demonstrated wrong through the power of reason?
Physics and religion are two very different aspects of the human experience. The American Physical Society says so too.
At those times and nations, being Christian was a default starting point, and it does not allow us to make any deductions about the religiousness of the said persons. It is reasonable to believe that they understood the likely consequences of declaring atheism or even doubt in the religious system, which would have made their scientific works very difficult, and their publishing virtually impossible, not to mention other possible repercussions.
Calling Newton a religious man, because he lived in a Christian society, would be the same to call Einstein a nazi, because he was German.
Why do you say that? I find people argue with you, but I sense that you dont have much understanding of what science is about or how it works, it limitations and basic scientific method.
I sure hope so!!!!!
apparently you don't know what the word physical means. dreams are not physical, but a hammer hurts as much in dreams as in the real world. physical is the opposite of mental/spiritual. mental means something that is inside our consciousness, physical means something that is outside, but since the outside is always in your consciousness, the universe must be mental instead of physical.