Thank God for science

In the long term individual egos are irrelevant, it is the underlying methodology of discovery that is paramount.

Although the current religion of the big bang theorists is theatening the current system a little. In the end the system of peer review and open dissent and free debate has the greatest potential of deciding instead of closed minded institutionalized authority.
 
Cris said:
In the long term individual egos are irrelevant, it is the underlying methodology of discovery that is paramount.

Although the current religion of the big bang theorists is theatening the current system a little. In the end the system of peer review and open dissent and free debate has the greatest potential of deciding instead of closed minded institutionalized authority.
Click to expand...

How can peer review enable objective analysis if the ego's peers are artificially influenced?

How can there also be open dissent and free debate?

It is not apparent when science officially became uninstitutionalised, rather it seems to go through a continuum of institutionalisations.
 
Light,

How can peer review enable objective analysis if the ego's peers are artificially influenced?
Click to expand...
What does artificially influenced mean? I think you are confusing science with the people that do science. The methodology is entirely objective and good scientists will be equally objective, but if they stray then enough peers will very likely be ready to pounce on any mistakes, in these cases egos are a good thing.

How can there also be open dissent and free debate?
Click to expand...
These are not contradictory. One does not have to agree to have free debate, in fact such dissent is part of the power of science, it means claims and theories are constantly being questioned, verified, and tested for mistakes or enhancements. There is no assumption in science that truth has been achieved, unlike religion.

It is not apparent when science officially became uninstitutionalised, rather it seems to go through a continuum of institutionalisations.
Click to expand...
It is not officially institutionalized and should never be. Science is open to everyone, i.e. anyone can do science. In practice though much of the investigations need funding and that’s where the problems begin since it is politicians or powerful profit motivated companies who ultimately decide what funding is available and for what. That is a weakness of the system.
 
Yes, the church did have a monopoly on education in the past, but they also supressed anything they were uncomfortable. And they weren't too happy with Leonardo DaVinci, clearly a genius.
 
Cris

What does artificially influenced mean? I think you are confusing science with the people that do science. The methodology is entirely objective and good scientists will be equally objective, but if they stray then enough peers will very likely be ready to pounce on any mistakes, in these cases egos are a good thing.
Click to expand...

Methodology is not independant of the persons carrying it out - artificially influenced means the pursuit of name, fame etc under the guidance of lust, avarice etc

These are not contradictory. One does not have to agree to have free debate, in fact such dissent is part of the power of science, it means claims and theories are constantly being questioned, verified, and tested for mistakes or enhancements. There is no assumption in science that truth has been achieved, unlike religion.
Click to expand...

Well there is assumptions - in astronomy there is the assumption of the uniformity of time and space - it cannot be proven, obviously.

It is not officially institutionalized and should never be. Science is open to everyone, i.e. anyone can do science. In practice though much of the investigations need funding and that’s where the problems begin since it is politicians or powerful profit motivated companies who ultimately decide what funding is available and for what. That is a weakness of the system.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the finances of science, that's why you see the practical application of science is often either a)war or b) drug patents (ie - more $$$) - but aside from this, if I have a conclusion that is disparate from contemporaryt astronomy, will I be accepted or rejected because it contradicts their ideas of the uniformity of time and space? In other words isn't astronomy institutionalised around the notion of the uniformity of time and space?
 
lightgigantic said:
Well there is assumptions - in astronomy there is the assumption of the uniformity of time and space - it cannot be proven, obviously.
Click to expand...
Only in current observations and in theories that use that assumption as a basis.

lightgigantic said:
....if I have a conclusion that is disparate from contemporaryt astronomy, will I be accepted or rejected because it contradicts their ideas of the uniformity of time and space? In other words isn't astronomy institutionalised around the notion of the uniformity of time and space?
Click to expand...
No - it isn't. The poorer scientists may well be, especially when their egos have been based on theories supporting that assumption. You confuse science with the scientist.

But if you do manage to reach a conclusion that is disparate from contemporary astronomy then it will be listened to - and as long as you can support your conclusions with evidence, and that it fits other observations / evidence (i.e. you haven't merely cherry-picked the evidence you want) then it will be a theory as valid as anyone elses.

However, if two theories both fit the evidence then the one requiring least "unknowns" will be accepted first. But this doesn't mean that it is necessarily right - just more rational - until such evidence arises that can only be supported by one of the theories.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
I think God is a supporter of atheism, man was not designed to spy on God, only to know of him. Thus atheism prevents the desire to spy.

Also atheist do not believe in an after life, so rather than being wasteful in this one (saving it all for the next) they make the most of life here and now, which is how it is meant to be.

Take suicide bombers, would they give up their life so easily if they believed it to be their only one and there was no after life?

God is oppose to suicide and murder, thus would not encourage this type of extremism and would not be impressed that it is in his name.

Thus athiesm supports Gods agenda for man, which is to develop a moral code that comes from within and ensures proper use of this life and respect of the one life of all other living things.

Believing in many lives, makes one take this for granted so is counter productive.

Thus Roman, the fact that belief in God led to christianity which led to science and the ultimate rejection of God is of no surprise, rather part of the plan.

I have started new thread re the above and gods creation of atheism ;)
Click to expand...

You must have read my "What God Wants" post. ;)
 
Sarkus

Only in current observations and in theories that use that assumption as a basis.
Click to expand...

So what basis do you work out of? I mean if you accept the fallibility of the foundation of astronomy why would you adamantly adhere to it as an axiomatic truth?

No - it isn't. The poorer scientists may well be, especially when their egos have been based on theories supporting that assumption. You confuse science with the scientist.
Click to expand...

So in other words if a filthy rich researcher (or perhaps more likely - a researcher who has just invested 50 years of their career in a branch of empiricism - ie he is more attached than the supposed filthy rich one )- will gracefully leave the scene and unbiasedly investigate other paradigms of investigation if they are indicated to him - or will they be steeped in arrogance and ridicule such persons?

But if you do manage to reach a conclusion that is disparate from contemporary astronomy then it will be listened to - and as long as you can support your conclusions with evidence, and that it fits other observations / evidence (i.e. you haven't merely cherry-picked the evidence you want) then it will be a theory as valid as anyone elses.
Click to expand...

That is very difficult because the evidence that is established is established by an institutionalised foundation - for instance even in the cases of "new discoveries" - why does it take at least 20 years to reach the school text books if it is such a smoth process?
 
usp8riot said:
Science is the study of God's laws.
Click to expand...

It really isn't, but this belief drove the scientific revoultion.

In Western thought, religious or otherwise, their is a very pervasive idea that we live in an ordered, logical universe. With knowledge of the universe's laws, we may control the world.

It's not that Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion was the driving force behind science, a great deal of it of course was economic. But without a belief that one could find something they were searching for, would anyone ever search? If truth is believed to be found through mysticism, then truth is pursued through mystical means.

But if one believes that their world is structured and deterministic, then they will go about in a logical, materialist and deterministic fashion to uncover the underpinnings. And that is exactly what Europe's scientists did.

You'll also note that it was not Christianity per se that held back science, but a mystical, socio-economic powerhouse– the Catholic Church.





April really is the cruelest month.
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
So what basis do you work out of? I mean if you accept the fallibility of the foundation of astronomy why would you adamantly adhere to it as an axiomatic truth?
Click to expand...
I don't.

So in other words if a filthy rich researcher (or perhaps more likely - a researcher who has just invested 50 years of their career in a branch of empiricism - ie he is more attached than the supposed filthy rich one )- will gracefully leave the scene and unbiasedly investigate other paradigms of investigation if they are indicated to him - or will they be steeped in arrogance and ridicule such persons?
Click to expand...
Poorer as in "lesser" - the ones who do not fully abide by the scientific method - the ones who are biased.
Not "poor" as in financially poor.

That is very difficult because the evidence that is established is established by an institutionalised foundation - for instance even in the cases of "new discoveries" - why does it take at least 20 years to reach the school text books if it is such a smoth process?
Click to expand...
No - evidence is evidence. Only interpretation takes the time to be established and accepted.
 
Because people are people, whether or not they're in the Church of Science or Church of God.

It's hilarious how many people on this forum talk economics but their only source of economics is either Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh, how the atheists aren't academics or scholars, and all biology discussions are about penises, breasts, vaginas and possible combinations of the three.

Quick! If their are 4 people of random genders, how many permutations of tit-cock-cunt are there?
 
Roman said:
Western science wouldn't be where it is today were it not for Christianity.

The Christians figured that since God created the universe, he must have gone about it with rules. Since the Creator used rules, studying his creation would yield the rules by which he constructed the universe.

And if you study the philosophy of the men who pursued science, you will find that they believed in a mechanist creator, making their work possible. They knew they could search for the laws of mechanics, as their God created everything rationally and predictably.

Rather ironically, the atheism and quantum mechanics seems to be undermining the belief that all the laws in the universe can be distilled to one really sweet equation.

DISCUSS
Click to expand...
And all this time I was convinced that science and philosophy were a product of a Hellenic, pagan spirit that stood up to the unknown and didn’t cower behind delusions or pray to unsurpassable gods.

All this time I thought it was the Hellenic spirit who saw their gods as just as flawed as themselves and who did not fear exploring the unknown and did not believe in holy grounds that man could not tread upon.

I was wrong.
It was Christianity all along.

Did Christianity adopt Platonic thought or was it divinely inspired?
I wouldn’t know.


Thanks Sciforums.
 
Upon more research of Christianity's role in Western science, I discovered it's real roots are traced back to the Greeks.

Plato believed that nature was immutable and divinely created. Through study of the natural world, one could find God, or at least see God's workmanship. In the middle ages, this became known as natural theology. The Church, in large part, kept Greek thought alive for 1000 years.

When the age of exploration came and the evidence for uniformitarianism grew, when europe was introduced to tens of thousands of new vertabrate species, European scientists were forced to abandoned the bible as a source of naturalistic truths. Ironically, they turned on the very tradition that had created them.
 
Roman said:
Upon more research of Christianity's role in Western science, I discovered it's real roots are traced back to the Greeks.

Plato believed that nature was immutable and divinely created. Through study of the natural world, one could find God, or at least see God's workmanship. In the middle ages, this became known as natural theology. The Church, in large part, kept Greek thought alive for 1000 years.

When the age of exploration came and the evidence for uniformitarianism grew, when europe was introduced to tens of thousands of new vertabrate species, European scientists were forced to abandoned the bible as a source of naturalistic truths. Ironically, they turned on the very tradition that had created them.
Click to expand...
You bastard!!
First you give and then you take away.
:mad:

Teach me more, master.
 
Roman said:
It depends. Is Christianity as it is practiced or what Christ's disciples wrote down?
Click to expand...
Isn’t Paul the real father of Christianity?
Jesus would be appalled by what they did with his name and in his name.
 
KennyJC said:
Genetics... natural selection................. Jesus......

Yes, I see the connection...
Click to expand...
No, no, no.

More like:

God(love).....natural selection....Jesus..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top