The absurdity of religious choice

[penguin1234]

From my experience the only thing religion causes is conflict and wars. So i think that we just shouldnt bother with it. we'd probably all get along better.

My 2 cents

 

[Aqueous Id]

It is interesting how some people focus on the magical/fantasy elements, and ignore the ethical and philosophical components in the texts.

System analysis takes one step closer to those elements, and examines what lies beneath the magic and fantasy, namely, these were an attempt to explain phenomena for which ancient people had no science. Magic and fantasy give way to functional characters: superstition, myth, legend and fables. The continued reliance on these, long after science has rendered them obsolete, constitutes error. The focus you refer to arises from a tendency for neutral observers to flag errors, so that may be all you are noticing.

One thing that is typical for science fiction is its direct or subtle focus on ethical and philosophical issues. While many people find a direct, analytical discussion of ethical and philosophical issues unappealing, they are attracted to them when they are nicely packaged in the form of science fiction or soap opera. I think that it is precisely the ethical and philosophical issues that are the relevant ones, the seven-mile boots, magic potions and space ships are just incidental in a narrative that is actually about courage, meaning of life, friendship and such.

The analogy might apply if religion limited itself to a harmless morality play. But it doesn't. The story is not posed hypothetically, but as an absolute rendering of ultimate reality. Nor is it harmless. It tampers with the mysteries of the human mind, subjugating the naive and gullible, waging propaganda wars, and disturbing the natural peace and progress of individuals and societies.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The difference is that science fiction is FICTION. We know it's fiction, we aren't told to believe in the literal truth of Asimov!

And, consequently, no one is trying to get The Foundation Trilogy into the curriculum of science classes.

Great minds think alike!

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure. A creator and governor of the universe who people worship.

And this comprehension operates outside of the umbrella of "all religions"?

Unlike religion, the principles of Science do not have a penalty clause for anyone who would disturb its tenets (e.g., burning at the stake)

I guess you missed the one about losing one's job or academic credibility

but rather a reward system (e.g., Nobel prize).

The science that frames your supposition about atheism, god being created by man et al certainly doesn't make that grade.

IOW there is clearly a distinction between the "science" that is awarded nobel prizes and the "science" that supports your ideology.

Any such fabrications are rare incursions into promulgated truth, falsifiable, and purged upon discovery.

again, notice how the "science" that "supports" your assertions is not of that type

However, religion retains core fallacies for millennia, rejects falsifiability or testing, and accretes myth, superstition, legend and fable, to support and defend the myth, superstition, legend and fable that comprise the core belief.

what are these "core fallacies" precisely?

Therefore science and religion are diametrically opposed in their treatment of fabrication.

not in the slightest - for instance compare the notion that life is materially reducible - an idea that gets bandied about here quite frequently here - and note how there is a complete absence of evidence for that claim

The connection between Gilgamesh and Noah, or Tiamat and Genesis, does not arise out of opinion, but out of the intrinsic properties of the accounts, namely, they each propound superstition, myth, legend and fable.

once again thats simply your guess work (or guess work of people you agree with, to be precise) ... and I am sure,a s any christian will tell you, that teh appearance of jesus re-contextualized how one approaches the old testament anyway.

They correlate in seeking to explain phenomena for which there was no science.

Once again, that's just hot air at worst or an approach to the interpretation of a body of evidence that grows even more flimsier the more you try to call upon it as the standard to how cultures acquire ideas about god

There are other sources, besides Gilgamesh and Tiamat, where creation mythology is propounded. Some of these (Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian, Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian) correlate with Caananite beliefs, both geographically and in time. They correlate in the extent of the characters of superstition, myth, legend and fables. There are additional elements that correlate more directly. My statement was to acknowledge this, merely to bookmark this as supporting evidence.

which says absolutely nothing about the core idea - that god exists - being a convenient fabrication of culture

Otherwise we can take this example to find quite a few gilgameshes in the making
(go to the 3:45 mark to see the action begin)

The presence of superstition, myth, legend and fable, in the religious writings of antiquity, is an intrinsic property, available prima facie, without need of making claims or engaging hypothesis testing.

Much like the presence of fabrication (or people getting in wrong) in science or in fact any other discipline advocating knowable claims that you could care to mention ....
so what's your point?

To the extent these characters attach to core tenets, then the instances are not peripheral, but central.

Basically this is your argument : at about 26th century BC there appears to have been a king (according to documentation as we know it). This documentation describes the king in manners that are quite unlike we experience today .. although it is a bit difficult to say how much the original documentation propounded that since the character appears to have been rehashed in several cultures up to and around the 8th Century AD. In this way, it is difficult to discern fact from fiction as to the qualities etc of the said king. This is evidence that god per se, as a phenomena, is nothing more than a fictional fabrication of culture.

Hopefully you don't need me to explain how that is not even close to an argument

Missing from this analysis is the fact that truths are built upon the proof of error. The known errors you refer to have served as stepping stones, to lift people out of the darkness of religious superstition, and to supplant myth with knowledge, which is the contribution of science.

What you are missing from your analysis is that the further the subject drifts into soft science, like anthropology for instance (which is the science at the core of practically all of your assertions about "scientific" atheism) the less likely that is

Also missing is the sense of intent or complicity that normally attaches to the term "fabricate".
In religion, the intent to deceive is feasible insofar as the goal is to preserve superstition, myth, legend and fables. In science, deception is infeasible, insofar as the goal is to preserve truth, accuracy and reliability.

Then it kind of makes you wonder why so much energy has been invested in the notion of consciousness being materially reducible (as but one example) since there is no truth, accuracy and reliability in the claim.

IOW the moment science oversteps the parameters of the senses and their sense objects to make claims about the greater context of the universe and the very tools that are doing the perception (ie consciousness) is teh moment they are out on a limb

I disagree that science is polluted as you seem to suggest.

Not polluted - limited.
I disagree that science is as unlimited as you suggest

Whether or not people invent stuff does not impugn the authenticity of science.

Here is the OP from a thread I did some time back :

"Truth ultimately resides in the collective judgment of people who are committed to consensus and consistency," answers physics professor Alan Cromer in Uncommon Sense, a book about the scientific method. The axiom here is that man can never judge what is true at the macrocosmic level. Macrocosmic data must be reduced to the mesocosmic level (ie - greater objectivity expressed through human discourse is actually human subjectivity)

In other words, if we want knowledge of the universe, we have to humble ourselves before society. As Cromer argues, "Science, like democratic politics, is a social activity." He calls science "an extension of rhetoric." Only by the democratic exchange of viewpoints through the medium of language can we arrive at a unified understanding of our diverse experiences. Society crowns as the winner the best argument emerging from that exchange. But though the winning argument is crowned "truth," social judgment hardly insures that truth is crowned the winning argument. History repeatedly shows the scientific community handing the crown to an untrue argument.

Up until the year 1800, it was the collective judgment of scientists that rocks do not fall from the sky. In 1768, a good number of French villagers witnessed a meteor crash to earth in their locale. Where it landed, there, for all to see, was a rock from sky. But member of the French Academy of Sciences Antoine Lavosier, having arrived four years later to investigate, argued that the stone was always on the ground, and that the villagers had only witnessed a thunderbolt strike it. The scientific community crowned his argument the winner.

In spite of such lapses in their own knowledge, the scientific community presumes to decide for the rest of the world what is and isn't valid knowledge: evolution is, creationism isn't; reductionism is, vitalism isn't; naturalism is, supernaturalism isn't. And why? Evolution, reductionism and naturalism are faithful servants of economic determinism.

Like blinders that a farmer puts on the head of a workhorse so that the animal will pull its load straight ahead without distraction, these "truths" help fix the public mind on economic development as the only goal of life. What is good for the economy is good for science.

Yet the public isn't buying into scientific "truths" like it used to. For example, while scientists overwhelmingly agree that once a year the earth revolves around the sun, less than fifty percent of the adult population of the United States acknowledges that to be true. Books like Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark evince the dismay of leading scientists at the common man's diminishing respect for so-called scientific facts.

It gets worse: this diminishing respect can be linked to a widespread suspicion that top scientists are involved in some kind of worldwide plot to deceive the public. Hollywood panders to this paranoia with hugely successful films and TV series (The X-Files, Conspiracy Theory, Men in Black). Is it all just showbiz and mass delusion? Well, even scientists testify there's something to worry about. In 1996, a nuclear physicist published a book documenting the existence of MJ-12, a secret council on UFOs formed in 1947 by top US scientists, government experts and military brass. Also in 1996, a microbiologist published a book documenting how the official dogma about AIDS is a lie. There is no proof that the HIV virus causes AIDS.

It is beside the point how factual such accusations really are. The point is that such accusations are the subject of movies, documentaries, news programs, network specials, newspaper stories, magazine covers, talk shows, seminars, Internet chatter and tabloid fantasies. This proves that society is far from convinced that science--at least the high-level government-funded kind of science--is open, democratic and thus "socially" truthful.

Even if the grand conspiracy theories are questionable, that does not make "normal" science trustworthy. In 1995, the British Library Science Reference and Information Service published a documented review of the social origins of fraud in science. Polls of the scientific community taken by New Scientist magazine (1976 and 1987), the British Medical Journal (1988), the Society of University Surgeons (1989), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1992), American Scientist magazine (1993), and the journal Science, Technology and Human Values (1994) report that cheating (falsification and manipulation of data) and plagiarism are alarmingly common among professionals. Five main causes of fraud were identified: personality factors, the pressure to publish, the academic rat race, commercialism, and pressure from sponsors. Without these five, there surely could be no social activity in science. Yet when asked, scientists admit each breeds ruthlessness, dishonesty and stonewalling.

One of the reasons science prevails is that it assumes people and systems will err, and so it imposes error detection and correction in order to achieve and maintain accuracy and quality of results. This is rather basic to science, since discovery and proof of error is the foundation for establishing truth. This leaves the methodologies of science unscathed. Minor or temporary setbacks in some particular branch of investigation, will only tend to spawn new investigation, new discovery and new progress. This is why science enjoys continuous growth in the size of discovered truth, while religion remains relatively static in the size of its belief. Science brings authority that is authenticated by proof and evidence, whereas religious authority is left unauthenticated, without proof or evidence, relying instead on its library of superstition, myth, legend and fables.

the simple fact is that a metonymic approach to knowledge has at its core ignorance - IOW whatever ideas you are trying to float as the scientific consensus on religion and god, I can guarantee, that science itself will thwart and suggest otherwise, much like the french scientists claim that rocks don't fall from the sky

 

[lightgigantic]

From my experience the only thing religion causes is conflict and wars. So i think that we just shouldnt bother with it. we'd probably all get along better.

My 2 cents

I think you are confusing religion with politics - and since material existence, in lieu of being dependent on resources for growth, sustenance and enjoyment, necessitates a political outlook, the chances of us simply not bothering with it don't at all appear likely in the near future ....

Now suppose we started talking about a transcendental attitude to material existence (like "all people are created equal" - which is certainly a claim that you would have difficulty establishing materially) then perhaps we might have a foundation for overcoming or at least minimizing the material requirement for politics ...

 

[lightgigantic]

Question to you then...did i say what aspects of this material world run my life? In addition did you even bother to question if did love my family and wish to support them? Thirdly did you just implied that I deify any other mortal being? What evidence do YOU have to support your prejudice against me?. I only wish to succeed in this man-made jungle and buy freedom( in this society true freedom doesn't exist without capital or some form of monetary inducements) for me an obsession with the afterlife and metaphysical world is clear sign of an inability to cope with the current and real one.

I simply stated that you merely outsourced the authorities that your free will operates between.

As the simile of me to someone who doesn’t believe in global warming (which is a incorrect label for climate change by the way) seems unrelated to the subject at hand (that being the fundamental question and mysteries of Homo Sapiens existence on this tiny blue speck

It was illustrating how exclusively calling upon anecdotal evidence to justify an approach to existential/ontological claims can provide a large bubble of ignorance that may not pop for quite some time ....

Before John Lennon imagined "living life in peace," he conjured "no heaven … / no hell below us …/ and no religion too."

which I guess would leave us with politics, the brass tacks of conflict ....
:shrug:

No religion: What was Lennon summoning? For starters, a world without "divine" messengers, like Osama bin Laden, sparking violence.

Never mind the pertinent fact that the middle east was the background play yard for cold war conflicts, eh?
Heat with politics, mix heaps of money and weapons, stir vigorously - what do you suppose that is a recipe for, eh?

A world where mistakes, like the avoidable loss of life in Hurricane Katrina, would be rectified rather than chalked up to "God's will."

I wasn't aware that natural disasters can be avoided, much less not dying in one ...

Where politicians no longer compete to prove who believes more strongly in the irrational and untenable.

Sounds like that would require a healthy dose of transcendental knowledge ....

Where critical thinking is an ideal. In short, a world that makes sense.

Which then begs the question, "sense to who?" (certainly not those ragheads in the desert, eh?)

In recent years scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's "DNA." They have produced robust theories, backed by empirical evidence (including "imaging" studies of the brain at work), that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.

I think I saw the John Cleese documentary about that

And the better we understand the science, the closer we can come to "no heaven … no hell … and no religion too."

You might be one of those persons who have the gene that makes them take the scientific method and apply it to their own pathological literal mindedness

Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce, traits developed long before recorded history, from foundations deep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past.

please link precisely what DNA you are talking about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome

If its this one .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMAT2
.... you have a failed argument on your hands

For example, we are born with a powerful need for attachment, identified as long ago as the 1940s by psychiatrist John Bowlby and expanded on by psychologist Mary Ainsworth. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it. We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and, more saliently, gods.

so just like gods are false, so are mothers, authority figures and anyone/thing acting in the role of a protector ... wait a sec ... they're real!!

God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance.
Scientists have so far identified about 20 hard-wired, evolved "adaptations" as the building blocks of religion.

others disagree

Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain. PZ Myers argues: "It's a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.'"[4]

Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions: Brain-imaging studies at the National Institutes of Health showed that when test subjects were read statements about religion and asked to agree or disagree, the same brain networks that process human social behavior — our ability to negotiate relationships with others — were engaged.
Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, for example, or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies.
In addition to these adaptations, humans have developed the remarkable ability to think about what goes on in other people's minds and create and rehearse complex interactions with an unseen other. In our minds we can de-couple cognition from time, place and circumstance. We consider what someone else might do in our place; we project future scenarios; we replay past events. It's an easy jump to say, conversing with the dead or to conjuring gods and praying to them.

You ever heard of type I and II errors?

Morality, which some see as imposed by gods or religion on savage humans, science sees as yet another adaptive strategy handed down to us by natural selection.

Once again, its not science, but a particular selection of scientists (with whom all other scientists disagree with or refrain from crediting as conclusive)

Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom notes that "it is often beneficial for humans to work together … which means it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and nastiness of other individuals." In groundbreaking research, he and his team found that infants in their first year of life demonstrate aspects of an innate sense of right and wrong, good and bad, even fair and unfair. When shown a puppet climbing a mountain, either helped or hindered by a second puppet, the babies oriented toward the helpful puppet. They were able to make an evaluative social judgment, in a sense a moral response.
Michael Tomasello, a developmental psychologist who co-directs the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, has also done work related to morality and very young children. He and his colleagues have produced a wealth of research that demonstrates children's capacities for altruism. He argues that we are born altruists who then have to learn strategic self-interest.

Its just when persons or the individuals themselves call upon such data to frame the notion that god is a fabrication that it becomes controversial and, on the whole, rejected.
In fact many even turn the data against their conclusions since all things we are hard wired for (food, water, parents, reproduction, siblings/peers etc) have a factual existence ... so any evidence of us being hard wired towards ideas of god is simply more evidence against their cause
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm not sure it's even that, but more like "Why opt for a table at all? Is a table that which I need right now? Or am I in greater need of a chair or drawer?"

Ever since I can remember, the issue of religious choice has been present in my life. There was heated argument over it in the family, with acquaintances, classmates at school.

I suppose all this strife left me with the impression that the relevance of finally choosing a religion is in that at least some of the social problems, some of the anger and contempt that I was targeted with, would be done away with. Provided, of course, that I would somehow choose "the right religion."

then it appears that the question is "how can I have a group of peers to surround myself with that won't inflame me"

 

[Aqueous Id]

Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
Sure. A creator and governor of the universe who people worship.

And this comprehension operates outside of the umbrella of "all religions"?

I don't know what "all religions" are

Unlike religion, the principles of Science do not have a penalty clause for anyone who would disturb its tenets (e.g., burning at the stake)

I guess you missed the one about losing one's job or academic credibility

A local firing event does not impugn science, nor does it compare to burning at the stake. There is no systemic evidence for firings. The stake was systemic.

but rather a reward system (e.g., Nobel prize).

”
The science that frames your supposition about atheism, god being created by man et al certainly doesn't make that grade.
IOW there is clearly a distinction between the "science" that is awarded nobel prizes and the "science" that supports your ideology.

That is a different matter. At this point I am only demonstrating how religion and science are different in their treament of self-correction.

Any such fabrications are rare incursions into promulgated truth, falsifiable, and purged upon discovery.

again, notice how the "science" that "supports" your assertions is not of that type

Again, here I am only contrasting religion and science, in disagreement with your statement that they are the same

However, religion retains core fallacies for millennia, rejects falsifiability or testing, and accretes myth, superstition, legend and fable, to support and defend the myth, superstition, legend and fable that comprise the core belief.

what are these "core fallacies" precisely?

Core tenets which arise out of superstition, myth, legend and fables, yet held as absolutes in regard to ultimate reality

Therefore science and religion are diametrically opposed in their treatment of fabrication.

not in the slightest - for instance compare the notion that life is materially reducible - an idea that gets bandied about here quite frequently here - and note how there is a complete absence of evidence for that claim

My reply addresses science, as a methodology, having shown that the tenets of science are falsifiable, and subjected to continuous refinements, increasing in truth and accuracy, whereas religions are realitively static. Again, I am enumerating the substantial differences between the science and religion.

The connection between Gilgamesh and Noah, or Tiamat and Genesis, does not arise out of opinion, but out of the intrinsic properties of the accounts, namely, they each propound superstition, myth, legend and fable.

once again thats simply your guess work (or guess work of people you agree with, to be precise) ... and I am sure,a s any christian will tell you, that teh appearance of jesus re-contextualized how one approaches the old testament anyway.

You stated it was my opinion. I gave you the facts that establish that these elements are common to Genesis and its predecessor religions, that these are intrinsic to those particular texts, not the product of opinion.

They correlate in seeking to explain phenomena for which there was no science.

Once again, that's just hot air at worst or an approach to the interpretation of a body of evidence that grows even more flimsier the more you try to call upon it as the standard to how cultures acquire ideas about god

I didn't say that. I said the texts reveal that they invented gods to explain phenomena for which there was no science.

There are other sources, besides Gilgamesh and Tiamat, where creation mythology is propounded. Some of these (Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian, Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian) correlate with Caananite beliefs, both geographically and in time. They correlate in the extent of the characters of superstition, myth, legend and fables. There are additional elements that correlate more directly. My statement was to acknowledge this, merely to bookmark this as supporting evidence.

which says absolutely nothing about the core idea - that god exists - being a convenient fabrication of culture

I didn't say that. I said: in each case, the myth invents a god to explain the phenomena for which they had no science

The presence of superstition, myth, legend and fable, in the religious writings of antiquity, is an intrinsic property, available prima facie, without need of making claims or engaging hypothesis testing.

Much like the presence of fabrication (or people getting in wrong) in science or in fact any other discipline advocating knowable claims that you could care to mention ....

No, because science does not systematically adopt fabrication, as religions do

so what's your point?

That science is nothing like a religion

To the extent these characters attach to core tenets, then the instances are not peripheral, but central.

Basically this is your argument : at about 26th century BC there appears to have been a king (according to documentation as we know it). This documentation describes the king in manners that are quite unlike we experience today .. although it is a bit difficult to say how much the original documentation propounded that since the character appears to have been rehashed in several cultures up to and around the 8th Century AD. In this way, it is difficult to discern fact from fiction as to the qualities etc of the said king. This is evidence that god per se, as a phenomena, is nothing more than a fictional fabrication of culture.

No, that is not my argument. This is: The Gilgamesh Epic includes the seminal material for the creation of Adam and the Flood. The subject of Tiamat illustrates the invention of two gods, one who slays the other, so that the raw material for the universe is available for the survivor (Marduk) to fling into the sky and complete the creation. This exemplifies the invention of gods to explain the phenomenon of the Milky Way, for which they had no science.

Hopefully you don't need me to explain how that is not even close to an argument

It is my statement demonstrating the difference between the origins of a religious tenet (superstion, myth, etc to explain phenomena) as opposed to a tenet of science (investigation into the actual causes)

Missing from this analysis is the fact that truths are built upon the proof of error. The known errors you refer to have served as stepping stones, to lift people out of the darkness of religious superstition, and to supplant myth with knowledge, which is the contribution of science.

What you are missing from your analysis is that the further the subject drifts into soft science, like anthropology for instance (which is the science at the core of practically all of your assertions about "scientific" atheism) the less likely that is

All I have addressed thus far is the contrast between religion and science which I illustrated as described above. The science by which the materials were uncovered and translated does not have any bearing on the fact that they provide prima facie evidence of the invention of gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science

Also missing is the sense of intent or complicity that normally attaches to the term "fabricate"
In religion, the intent to deceive is feasible insofar as the goal is to preserve superstition, myth, legend and fables. In science, deception is infeasible, insofar as the goal is to preserve truth, accuracy and reliability.

Then it kind of makes you wonder why so much energy has been invested in the notion of consciousness being materially reducible (as but one example) since there is no truth, accuracy and reliability in the claim.

.
I am addressing this at the level of systematics, to show that religion and science are not similar, as you say. Religion preserves error, science discovers it and purges it. This in itself is significant enough to show that they are not similar.

IOW the moment science oversteps the parameters of the senses and their sense objects to make claims about the greater context of the universe and the very tools that are doing the perception (ie consciousness) is teh moment they are out on a limb

Which journal are you referring to?

I disagree that science is polluted as you seem to suggest.

Not polluted - limited.
I disagree that science is as unlimited as you suggest

I didn't say science was unlimited. I said it purges errors, unlike religion.

Whether or not people invent stuff does not impugn the authenticity of science.

Here is the OP from a thread I did some time back :

"Truth ultimately resides in the collective judgment of people who are committed to consensus and consistency," answers physics professor Alan Cromer in Uncommon Sense, a book about the scientific method. The axiom here is that man can never judge what is true at the macrocosmic level. Macrocosmic data must be reduced to the mesocosmic level (ie - greater objectivity expressed through human discourse is actually human subjectivity)

In other words, if we want knowledge of the universe, we have to humble ourselves before society. As Cromer argues, "Science, like democratic politics, is a social activity." He calls science "an extension of rhetoric." Only by the democratic exchange of viewpoints through the medium of language can we arrive at a unified understanding of our diverse experiences. Society crowns as the winner the best argument emerging from that exchange. But though the winning argument is crowned "truth," social judgment hardly insures that truth is crowned the winning argument. History repeatedly shows the scientific community handing the crown to an untrue argument.

Up until the year 1800, it was the collective judgment of scientists that rocks do not fall from the sky. In 1768, a good number of French villagers witnessed a meteor crash to earth in their locale. Where it landed, there, for all to see, was a rock from sky. But member of the French Academy of Sciences Antoine Lavosier, having arrived four years later to investigate, argued that the stone was always on the ground, and that the villagers had only witnessed a thunderbolt strike it. The scientific community crowned his argument the winner.

In spite of such lapses in their own knowledge, the scientific community presumes to decide for the rest of the world what is and isn't valid knowledge: evolution is, creationism isn't; reductionism is, vitalism isn't; naturalism is, supernaturalism isn't. And why? Evolution, reductionism and naturalism are faithful servants of economic determinism.

Like blinders that a farmer puts on the head of a workhorse so that the animal will pull its load straight ahead without distraction, these "truths" help fix the public mind on economic development as the only goal of life. What is good for the economy is good for science.

Yet the public isn't buying into scientific "truths" like it used to. For example, while scientists overwhelmingly agree that once a year the earth revolves around the sun, less than fifty percent of the adult population of the United States acknowledges that to be true. Books like Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark evince the dismay of leading scientists at the common man's diminishing respect for so-called scientific facts.

It gets worse: this diminishing respect can be linked to a widespread suspicion that top scientists are involved in some kind of worldwide plot to deceive the public. Hollywood panders to this paranoia with hugely successful films and TV series (The X-Files, Conspiracy Theory, Men in Black). Is it all just showbiz and mass delusion? Well, even scientists testify there's something to worry about. In 1996, a nuclear physicist published a book documenting the existence of MJ-12, a secret council on UFOs formed in 1947 by top US scientists, government experts and military brass. Also in 1996, a microbiologist published a book documenting how the official dogma about AIDS is a lie. There is no proof that the HIV virus causes AIDS.

It is beside the point how factual such accusations really are. The point is that such accusations are the subject of movies, documentaries, news programs, network specials, newspaper stories, magazine covers, talk shows, seminars, Internet chatter and tabloid fantasies. This proves that society is far from convinced that science--at least the high-level government-funded kind of science--is open, democratic and thus "socially" truthful.

Even if the grand conspiracy theories are questionable, that does not make "normal" science trustworthy. In 1995, the British Library Science Reference and Information Service published a documented review of the social origins of fraud in science. Polls of the scientific community taken by New Scientist magazine (1976 and 1987), the British Medical Journal (1988), the Society of University Surgeons (1989), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1992), American Scientist magazine (1993), and the journal Science, Technology and Human Values (1994) report that cheating (falsification and manipulation of data) and plagiarism are alarmingly common among professionals. Five main causes of fraud were identified: personality factors, the pressure to publish, the academic rat race, commercialism, and pressure from sponsors. Without these five, there surely could be no social activity in science. Yet when asked, scientists admit each breeds ruthlessness, dishonesty and stonewalling.

I'm not sure if a book reviewer counts as a spokesperson for all of science. But here is another reviewer showing that Cromer is gung ho about science, and wants to improve the teaching methodology:

Today's de emphasis on teaching pupils necessary facts and principles, he argues, "far from empowering them, makes them slaves of their own subjective opinions." This movement in education, known as Constructivism, has close ties to postmodern critics (such as the editors of Social Text) who question the objectivity of science, and with it the existence of an objective reality. Cromer offers a ringing defense of the knowability of the world, both as an objective reality and as a finite landscape of discovery. The advance of scientific knowledge, he argues, is not unlike the mapping of the continents; at this point, we have found them all. He shows how the advent of quantum mechanics, rather than making knowledge less certain, actually offers a more precise understanding of the behavior of atoms and electrons. Turning from philosophy to education, he argues that instead of allowing students to flounder, however creatively, schools should follow a progressive curriculum that returns theoretical knowledge to the classroom.

Will the real Dr. Cromer please stand up?

One of the reasons science prevails is that it assumes people and systems will err, and so it imposes error detection and correction in order to achieve and maintain accuracy and quality of results. This is rather basic to science, since discovery and proof of error is the foundation for establishing truth. This leaves the methodologies of science unscathed. Minor or temporary setbacks in some particular branch of investigation, will only tend to spawn new investigation, new discovery and new progress. This is why science enjoys continuous growth in the size of discovered truth, while religion remains relatively static in the size of its belief. Science brings authority that is authenticated by proof and evidence, whereas religious authority is left unauthenticated, without proof or evidence, relying instead on its library of superstition, myth, legend and fables.

the simple fact is that a metonymic approach to knowledge has at its core ignorance - IOW whatever ideas you are trying to float as the scientific consensus on religion and god, I can guarantee, that science itself will thwart and suggest otherwise, much like the french scientists claim that rocks don't fall from the sky

I am not stating consensus, I am describing the differences between religion and science, in answer to your objections. It would be another exercise to try to tabulate all the jounals and count how many times an error was uncovered, how many times a refinement was added, and how many times and innovation was reported. But as a rough estimate, it would seem sufficient to merely collect the total number of articles plot these as a function of time. Another would be to go through wiki and count them somehow. Or, we could do a case study by picking one journal, and delving into its history. In any case, there is a means to uncover enormous evidence of the process I described, which does not require consensus, just a plain reading of the evidence. As for rocks not falling out of the sky, we can find any number of journals which will prove that the error you allude to has corrected itself. Upon your concurrence, we would then resolve the question of whether science is self-correcting, while religion is not, and then we would conclude that science is not a religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know what "all religions" are

yet you want us to take you seriously when you talk about what all gods are?

A local firing event does not impugn science, nor does it compare to burning at the stake. There is no systemic evidence for firings. The stake was systemic.

You don't think a scientist would rate losing their income/job/credibility as a penalty?

That is a different matter. At this point I am only demonstrating how religion and science are different in their treament of self-correction.

and as I mentioned, the further the science drifts away from hard science into the realm of speculation, the less distinct that difference is (and as a further detail, the "science" often called upon to justify/strengthen the atheist stance, belongs to this category)

Again, here I am only contrasting religion and science, in disagreement with your statement that they are the same

Once again, atheists often artificially play science as having a singular epistemological framework in such discussions

Core tenets which arise out of superstition, myth, legend and fables, yet held as absolutes in regard to ultimate reality

precisely as what?
God's existence?
Or a peripheral issue?

My reply addresses science, as a methodology, having shown that the tenets of science are falsifiable, and subjected to continuous refinements, increasing in truth and accuracy, whereas religions are realitively static. Again, I am enumerating the substantial differences between the science and religion.

My point is to show how similarly so called static ideas can lodge even within science (particularly when there is an ideological gain to be made).

IOW its perfectly clear that religion is not the only discipline vulnerable to being tainted\hijacked by the ideological sub-narratives of its advocates

You stated it was my opinion. I gave you the facts that establish that these elements are common to Genesis and its predecessor religions, that these are intrinsic to those particular texts, not the product of opinion.

But that is not a fact.
Its simply an opinion (since the topic is so heavily shrouded in antiquity and the old testament is such a haven of text critical issues).

I didn't say that. I said the texts reveal that they invented gods to explain phenomena for which there was no science.

Even if we want to ride with your dubious opinions, saying "someone somewhere invented gods" is just as as valid as saying "someone somewhere misrepresented/fabricated science".

IOW people get in wrong in all fields, which in no way impedes the activities of people getting it right.

I didn't say that. I said: in each case, the myth invents a god to explain the phenomena for which they had no science

Once again you can't really say that since you haven't gone into the specifics of what is specifically being presented of characters, how this contradicts "real" knowledge of the subject, how this overall can be applied as a category error for "god" ... much less how this typifies the approach the question of god.

No, because science does not systematically adopt fabrication, as religions do

That's simply a statement about the ideal of science as opposed to its practice.

I mean I too could go on a tirade about key examples of science systematically adopting fabrications (eugenics is a good one) but I understand that simply harping on about the ones who got it wrong in no way impedes the progress of those who got it right.

That science is nothing like a religion

others beg to differ

As many have observed, modern science has become a religion, at least for Western man. Like other religions, it has a priesthood, roughly organized on hierarchical lines. It has temples, shrines, and rituals and it has a body of canons. And. like other religions, it has its own mythology. One myth in particular states that if, say, by experiment a scientific theory is confronted in reality with a single contradiction, one piece of discontinuing evidence, then that theory is automatically set aside and a new theory that takes the contradiction into account is adopted. This is not the way science actually works.

No, that is not my argument. This is: The Gilgamesh Epic includes the seminal material for the creation of Adam and the Flood. The subject of Tiamat illustrates the invention of two gods, one who slays the other, so that the raw material for the universe is available for the survivor (Marduk) to fling into the sky and complete the creation. This exemplifies the invention of gods to explain the phenomenon of the Milky Way, for which they had no science.

then its not clear why you insisted you had something to offer other than peripheral wranglings of details.

You've been alluding to arguments about the fabrication of gods for naught.

It is my statement demonstrating the difference between the origins of a religious tenet (superstion, myth, etc to explain phenomena) as opposed to a tenet of science (investigation into the actual causes)

And as shown repeatedly, any discipline of knowledge you care to mention is subject to receiving a bit of "personal colour" from its advocates - the Weizenbaum article about ideas of artificial intelligence being a good example

All I have addressed thus far is the contrast between religion and science which I illustrated as described above. The science by which the materials were uncovered and translated does not have any bearing on the fact that they provide prima facie evidence of the invention of gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science

But you haven't talked about the invention of gods - you have talked about a peripheral detail (that barely finds mention in the most dubious chapters of a seminal work .. that is further contextualized as mostly of no consequence in lieu of the new testament)

.

I am addressing this at the level of systematics, to show that religion and science are not similar, as you say. Religion preserves error, science discovers it and purges it. This in itself is significant enough to show that they are not similar.

And I am providing direct examples that clearly suggest otherwise

Which journal are you referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_ontology

I didn't say science was unlimited. I said it purges errors, unlike religion.

And I explained why it is always in a state of error.

IOW a system of knowledge that has no recourse outside of the metonymic will constantly be in a state of finding things wrong - namely because its core tools (the mind and senses) are relegated to a limited existence. I guess you can perceive the "constant" work of empiricism as "progress" but you should understand that this progress is necessarily limited .. and as a further detail, there are other systems of knowledge that tackle the very issues that "science" necessarily cannot.

I'm not sure if a book reviewer counts as a spokesperson for all of science. But here is another reviewer showing that Cromer is gung ho about science, and wants to improve the teaching methodology:



Will the real Dr. Cromer please stand up?

Noted that you didn't have a response to clear examples of fabrications in science .. so much so that it has filtered down to the level of popular culture.

I am not stating consensus, I am describing the differences between religion and science, in answer to your objections.

But you do this by effectively saying "this is the one and only valid idea on the relationship between Gilgamesh and contemporary christiantiy according to science". Do have any idea about how many different ideas there have been on the subject, even in the past 60 years?

It would be another exercise to try to tabulate all the jounals and count how many times an error was uncovered, how many times a refinement was added, and how many times and innovation was reported. But as a rough estimate, it would seem sufficient to merely collect the total number of articles plot these as a function of time. Another would be to go through wiki and count them somehow. Or, we could do a case study by picking one journal, and delving into its history. In any case, there is a means to uncover enormous evidence of the process I described, which does not require consensus, just a plain reading of the evidence.

Oh, you mean like something the British Library Science Reference and Information Service did back in 1995?

As for rocks not falling out of the sky, we can find any number of journals which will prove that the error you allude to has corrected itself.

Type I error?
Type II error?

or

Personality factors?
The pressure to publish?
The academic rat race?
Commercialism?
Pressure from sponsors?

Upon your concurrence, we would then resolve the question of whether science is self-correcting, while religion is not, and then we would conclude that science is not a religion.

We haven't even begun to discuss how religion corrects itself.

At the moment you are having trouble on understanding the precise grounds on which science fabricates error (seemingly due to the myth commonly advocated by science, that upon receiving new information, conflicting data is automatically disbanded)

I vaguely remember the comments of one well known and accomplished scientist to the effect that the only difference between science and religion is that peer review testing occurs at a much accelerated rate ... so much for your ideas about them being diametrically opposed ...

 

[wynn]

then it appears that the question is "how can I have a group of peers to surround myself with that won't inflame me"

That would be nice, yes.

 

[lightgigantic]

That would be nice, yes.

Easy
When you make your first 100 million dollars don't forget to send me a cut.

 

[lightgigantic]

@ Aqueous Id

for your edification ...

The potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct also reflect on the institutions that host or employ them and also on the participants in any peer review process that has allowed the publication of questionable research. This means that a range of actors in any case may have a motivation to suppress any evidence or suggestion of misconduct. Persons who expose such cases, commonly called whistleblowers, can find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means.[25] These negative consequences for exposers of misconduct have driven the development of whistle blowers charters - designed to protect those who raise concerns. A whistleblower is almost always alone in his fight - his career becomes completely dependent on the decision about alleged misconduct. If the accusations prove false, his career is completely destroyed, but even in case of positive decision the career of the whistleblower can be under question: his reputation of "troublemaker" will prevent many employers from hiring him. There is no international body where a whistleblower could give his concerns. If a university fails to investigate suspected fraud or provides a fake investigation to save their reputation the whistleblower has no right of appeal. High profile journals like Nature and Science usually forward all allegations to the university where the authors are employed, or may do nothing at all.

 

[wynn]

Easy
When you make your first 100 million dollars

I said it would be nice to have a group of peers to surround myself with that won't inflame me, I am not talking about manipulating people into liking me!

don't forget to send me a cut.

Fer shure!

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

lightgigantic: I'm surprized...not by the material you have quoted but..but where you quoted and linked it from...WIKIPEDIA!?!?! Why of the millions of sites on the web of thousands of articles did you choose a second rate site for information regarding the context of my response?!? i consider that good sir an insult!

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: I'm surprized...not by the material you have quoted but..but where you quoted and linked it from...WIKIPEDIA!?!?! Why of the millions of sites on the web of thousands of articles did you choose a second rate site for information regarding the context of my response?!?

Because it has padded out an argument identical to the one you posted.
Why else?

i consider that good sir an insult!

Noted that you don't have a response for the weakness of the information you quoted

 

[lightgigantic]

I said it would be nice to have a group of peers to surround myself with that won't inflame me, I am not talking about manipulating people into liking me!

Then maybe this is more promising in helping you develop the necessary life skills

(BTW looks like you could still make a bit of money doing this so don't forget to send me a cut - no pun intended - when you start raking in the cash)

 

[wynn]

(BTW looks like you could still make a bit of money doing this so don't forget to send me a cut - no pun intended - when you start raking in the cash)

I do know that I owe you, I am painfully aware of that. This is probably what binds me to you, much to my dismay.
I hate being indebted!

 

[Aqueous Id]

Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
I don't know what "all religions" are

yet you want us to take you seriously when you talk about what all gods are?

God is generally defined as creator and governor of the universe, worshipped by people. "All religions" is rather indefinite. So they are not the same.

A local firing event does not impugn science, nor does it compare to burning at the stake. There is no systemic evidence for firings. The stake was systemic.

You don't think a scientist would rate losing their income/job/credibility as a penalty?

Unless the penalty arises by the action of systemic scientific policy to oppress someone who opposes a false theory widely held by scientists, it would not be relevant to the equivalent behavior in religion (eg burn the witches).

That is a different matter. At this point I am only demonstrating how religion and science are different in their treament of self-correction.

and as I mentioned, the further the science drifts away from hard science into the realm of speculation, the less distinct that difference is (and as a further detail, the "science" often called upon to justify/strengthen the atheist stance, belongs to this category)

“
It wouldn't matter if science involved only the art of basket weaving. If basket weavers had a systematic method for weeding out defects, they would equally be distinguished from religions by this mere fact. Therefore religions and science are not the same.

Again, here I am only contrasting religion and science, in disagreement with your statement that they are the same

Once again, atheists often artificially play science as having a singular epistemological framework in such discussions

Regardless of this, science itself marches on, demonstrating continuous refinements to, and discoveries of, the laws of nature, while religion holds them statically attached to fabrications of antiquity.

Core tenets which arise out of superstition, myth, legend and fables, yet held as absolutes in regard to ultimate reality

precisely as what?
God's existence?
Or a peripheral issue?

Core tenets means core tenets of religion, which deal with assigning values to ultimate reality which are strictly derived from superstition, myth, legend and fables. My reply addresses science, as a methodology, having shown that the tenets of science are falsifiable, and subjected to continuous refinements, increasing in truth and accuracy, whereas religions are static in their core tenets, leaving them attached to ancient fabrications. Again, I am enumerating the substantial differences between the science and religion.

My point is to show how similarly so called static ideas can lodge even within science (particularly when there is an ideological gain to be made).

Of course they can, as soon as no more correction occurs. Unlike religion, this is a natural process. In religion, the stasis is not natural. It's artificial. And that's the difference between religion and science.

IOW its perfectly clear that religion is not the only discipline vulnerable to being tainted\hijacked by the ideological sub-narratives of its advocates

No. Science will not be tainted or hijacked, because it is self-correcting. The point is not how many ways science moves, but that it moves and settles in the correct position, by means of feedback. Science is a closed loop process, by definition. Religion runs open loop, by definition. Thus science and religion are not the same.

You stated it was my opinion. I gave you the facts that establish that these elements are common to Genesis and its predecessor religions, that these are intrinsic to those particular texts, not the product of opinion.

But that is not a fact.
Its simply an opinion (since the topic is so heavily shrouded in antiquity and the old testament is such a haven of text critical issues).

No, I am speaking only of the intrisic characters of superstition, myth, legend and fables. That fact, by itself, establishes that religions of antiquity have fabricated the explanations for phenomena for which they had no science. Science discovers the true causes of phenomena, and abhors fabrication. Therefore science and religion are not the same.

I didn't say that. I said the texts reveal that they invented gods to explain phenomena for which there was no science.

Even if we want to ride with your dubious opinions, saying "someone somewhere invented gods" is just as as valid as saying "someone somewhere misrepresented/fabricated science".

No, the evidence speaks for itself, that it is fabricated, so my opinion is moot. As for the presumption that this reflects upon science, that is moot also. Furthermore, science is closed loop, and cannot become reliant on fabrication, as religion is, since it is open loop. Therefore science and religion are not the same.

IOW people get in wrong in all fields, which in no way impedes the activities of people getting it right.

The rightness or wrongness of a person has no bearing on whether science relies on fabrication, which is does not, and can not, since it is a closed loop system.

I didn't say that. I said: in each case, the myth invents a god to explain the phenomena for which they had no science

Once again you can't really say that since you haven't gone into the specifics of what is specifically being presented of characters, how this contradicts "real" knowledge of the subject, how this overall can be applied as a category error for "god" ... much less how this typifies the approach the question of god.

No, simply by a prima facie reading of the texts from antiquity, the evidence presents itself, and that evidence contains myths of gods who are created explain the phenomena for which they had no science.

No, because science does not systematically adopt fabrication, as religions do

That's simply a statement about the ideal of science as opposed to its practice.

It's a premise founded in fact and evidence that establishes that religion and science are not the same.

I mean I too could go on a tirade about key examples of science systematically adopting fabrications (eugenics is a good one) but I understand that simply harping on about the ones who got it wrong in no way impedes the progress of those who got it right.

Eugenics is not a principle upon which science relies, whereas religion relies, uncorrected on the notion of "chosen people" (for example). Besides, eugenics is probably only founded in a religious setting. We could use this for a case study, and measure the rise and fall of this proposition, and we will discover that science is a closed loop that auto-corrects, which is the only fact we need to discover that science is not the same as religion, since religion is open loop.

That science is nothing like a religion

others beg to differ
They are ignoring the differences I have shown

As many have observed, modern science has become a religion, at least for Western man. Like other religions, it has a priesthood, roughly organized on hierarchical lines. It has temples, shrines, and rituals and it has a body of canons. And. like other religions, it has its own mythology. One myth in particular states that if, say, by experiment a scientific theory is confronted in reality with a single contradiction, one piece of discontinuing evidence, then that theory is automatically set aside and a new theory that takes the contradiction into account is adopted. This is not the way science actually works.

What science is, ie, whether it is a religion or not, has nothing to do with such ideation. It is merely has an intrinsic property, that it will auto correct, and that it will abhor fabrication, which is distinctly different from religion.

However, I agree completely that people have the perceptions you allude to. My hope would be to disabuse them of their error, and to discover the actual causes of their angst, which manifest to me as resentment, paranioa, and other disturbances of a deeper cause than the fact of a particular theory or scientific finding.

No, that is not my argument. This is: The Gilgamesh Epic includes the seminal material for the creation of Adam and the Flood. The subject of Tiamat illustrates the invention of two gods, one who slays the other, so that the raw material for the universe is available for the survivor (Marduk) to fling into the sky and complete the creation. This exemplifies the invention of gods to explain the phenomenon of the Milky Way, for which they had no science.

”
then its not clear why you insisted you had something to offer other than peripheral wranglings of details.

The causes of the nature, eg, Creation, is not a peripheral matter in the religions we are speaking of here. It is core. In a plain reading of these texts, at least as they pertain to creation, the fact that they share common elements, and the nature of those elements, establishes prima facie evidence that they invented gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science. Thus, core tenets of religion dating from antiquity, exemplified by these texts, are fabricated, in contrast to the core tenets of science, which are learned through discovery. Thus religion and science are not the same.

You've been alluding to arguments about the fabrication of gods for naught.
In order to establish that core tenets of religion are fabricated, whereas core tenets of science are discovered, which makes science and religion dissimilar.

It is my statement demonstrating the difference between the origins of a religious tenet (superstion, myth, etc to explain phenomena) as opposed to a tenet of science (investigation into the actual causes)

And as shown repeatedly, any discipline of knowledge you care to mention is subject to receiving a bit of "personal colour" from its advocates - the Weizenbaum article about ideas of artificial intelligence being a good example

It is hard to imagine that any topic in artificial intelligence has anything to do with the discovery of nature, since artificial machinery and the machinery of nature are barely related. I was simply contrasting the tenets of religion which define that nature arose out of fabricated source material, as opposed to the scientific tenets of nature which arise out of discovery.

All I have addressed thus far is the contrast between religion and science which I illustrated as described above. The science by which the materials were uncovered and translated does not have any bearing on the fact that they provide prima facie evidence of the invention of gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science

But you haven't talked about the invention of gods - you have talked about a peripheral detail (that barely finds mention in the most dubious chapters of a seminal work .. that is further contextualized as mostly of no consequence in lieu of the new testament)

I mentioned that Tiamat was invented to explain the way the Milky Way appears to be flung across the sky. Her slayer, Marduk (invented to do the slinging) persists throughout various dynasties, so it is clear that this was a core tenet invented to explain a natural phenomenon for which they had no science. Other creation myths show a similar pattern: the god appears as a necessary force to cause the unexplained effect. Furthermore, I mentioned that the Gilgamesh Epic establishes how a man can be made of earth in direct parallel to the Genesis myth about Adam. Additionally, the Gilgamesh flood story has numerous identical features, from which it is evident that they were borrowed.This myth obviously explains the cause of natural disasters, for which they had no science, as well as the continuity and origin of species, for which they had no science. This alone establishes that these texts invented gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science. From this alone, it follows that, since religions rely on such fabricated tenets as these, then science cannot be similar to religion, since its tenets concerning nature are arrived at not by adoption of fabrications, but through discovery.

I am addressing this at the level of systematics, to show that religion and science are not similar, as you say. Religion preserves error, science discovers it and purges it. This in itself is significant enough to show that they are not similar.

And I am providing direct examples that clearly suggest otherwise
That remains to be seen. I haven't yet found any evidence that shows that science relies in fabrications in way religions do.

“
Which journal are you referring to?
”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_ontology
I only now noticed your earlier cite from Vedic Science. So far I've only glanced at it. At this point I would accept this as evidence of your earlier statement, that anti-science people have this perception. A cursory reading shows an opinion piece, using figures of speech, such as metaphor, or sarcasm, according to an essay that attempts to persuade. That's fine, I am only distinguishing it from prima facie evidence of science actually being a religion. I do not yet understand his position, so I'll read it and think about it. I will also check the wiki article later. So let me hit the pause button here.

I didn't say science was unlimited. I said it purges errors, unlike religion.

And I explained why it is always in a state of error.

To say science is in error is to assign it the state that exists at the error signal that arises out of the feedback loop. That signal, as I mentioned above, is in a constant state of flux, due to the continuous tracking of the output to the best evidence available. Therefore science is self-correcting, unlike religion, which has no error signal, and therefore is not self-correcting; and either way you look at it, they are dissimilar.

IOW a system of knowledge that has no recourse outside of the metonymic will constantly be in a state of finding things wrong

At the error signal, not at the post-error position.

- namely because its core tools (the mind and senses) are relegated to a limited existence.

since the contrast I have shown regards the assessments made of nature in science v religion, we are only confined to the evidence of nature insofar as the disparity is concerned, which is purely empirical, and while it is true that religion addresses nature in terms of superstitious explanations, this, if anything, only serves to further differentiate the two

I guess you can perceive the "constant" work of empiricism as "progress" but you should understand that this progress is necessarily limited .. and as a further detail, there are other systems of knowledge that tackle the very issues that "science" necessarily cannot.

I would have to reject a generalized boundary outside of science that is beyond its purview. All fringe, alternative and pseudoscience belong under the purview of science insofar as they tend towards fallacies that misrepresent known elements of nature, so science would invariably keep watch over these and provide fact checking for naive members of society who may fall prey to misrepresentations of actual facts and evidence under the purview of science. And while many religious matters are entirely out of the purview of science, those which are used as perennial attacks against science (typically only by fundamentalists) remain under the constant watch of scientists, who are concerned about the nature and persistence of the religious intrusion into
matters not under the purview of religion, and for the purpose of subordinating science to the fabrications of antiquity.

I'm not sure if a book reviewer counts as a spokesperson for all of science. But here is another reviewer showing that Cromer is gung ho about science, and wants to improve the teaching methodology:
Will the real Dr. Cromer please stand up?

”
Noted that you didn't have a response to clear examples of fabrications in science .. so much so that it has filtered down to the level of popular culture.

Yes I recognize that you are referring to perception, not the evidence of systemic defects that I am referring to.

I am not stating consensus, I am describing the differences between religion and science, in answer to your objections.

But you do this by effectively saying "this is the one and only valid idea on the relationship between Gilgamesh and contemporary christiantiy according to science". Do have any idea about how many different ideas there have been on the subject, even in the past 60 years?

No I wasn't looking for anything more than the fact of a connection (man made from clay, animals herded onto a boat, etc) that renders the prima facie conclusion that they shared their mythology. This is sufficient to show here that they are fabricated. Outside of this discussion, it would self-evident.

It would be another exercise to try to tabulate all the jounals and count how many times an error was uncovered, how many times a refinement was added, and how many times and innovation was reported. But as a rough estimate, it would seem sufficient to merely collect the total number of articles plot these as a function of time. Another would be to go through wiki and count them somehow. Or, we could do a case study by picking one journal, and delving into its history. In any case, there is a means to uncover enormous evidence of the process I described, which does not require consensus, just a plain reading of the evidence.

Oh, you mean like something the British Library Science Reference and Information Service did back in 1995?

No, I'm aware of these kinds of self-correcting materials, what I meant was, in order to show that science was not self correcting, you would want to go to cases of fabrication, and see what the journals tell us happened next, ie, did they the science self-correct? More importantly are they maintaining tese errors now, since we are principally concerned with the present state of science.

As for rocks not falling out of the sky, we can find any number of journals which will prove that the error you allude to has corrected itself.

”
Type I error?
Type II error?

or

Personality factors?
The pressure to publish?
The academic rat race?
Commercialism?
Pressure from sponsors?

The question here is, when establishing that science is not like a religion, I have relied on the contrast between the religious schema, in which explanations core to belief, which are known to have been fabricated in texts of antiquity, persist as the doctrines that explain phenomena which science today explains through discovery. To negate this, we would want to know if the response to the denial of rocks falling from the sky constitutes an interference with the truth of a core belief, and, if so, whether that survived the scutiny of science, or whether Science succumbed to it, which at some point it obviously did not, since that is not a core belief today. So already we can recognize that self correction works.

Upon your concurrence, we would then resolve the question of whether science is self-correcting, while religion is not, and then we would conclude that science is not a religion.

We haven't even begun to discuss how religion corrects itself.

Except I have shown that core beliefs, to the extent that they falsely render nature, persist under an open loop non-correcting system, ie, they continue to maintain core beliefs about nature merely because these are given in the fabrications of antiquity. Since this diametically opposes the scientific method, which abhors the establishment of doctrines about nature based upon known falsehood, then religion and science are not the same.

At the moment you are having trouble on understanding the precise grounds on which science fabricates error (seemingly due to the myth commonly advocated by science, that upon receiving new information, conflicting data is automatically disbanded)

I understand the claim, nothing more, I honestly think you folks are off your rockers. I understand the perennial religious agenda to undermine science and conduct propaganda warfare and mind control, and the culture war that accompanies it. I understand the lack of understanding of basic tenets of math and science that leaves lay people with a muddled framework in which to spin their yarns about how truth can be discovered merely by rebelling against the old guard du jour. I understand the advent of viral pseudoscience as a by-product of rant-inducing sites. I understand the desire to vent frustrations and strike out at supposed institutions, real or imagined, because someone got miffed, yelled at, discredited or fired. I also understand mental illness in its subtle forms: people with issues, needing help, coming here with delusions of grandeur, or just letting go for reasons they may not even know. I also understand the nutty and eccentric personas, the trolls and spammers, pranksters and hardcore types who feel their individuality is losing ground unless they push back.

So far that mostly accounts for known errors. But not one of them arises out of the application of the scientific method. It's just human error, running open loop, unchecked.

As far as whether new information disbands conflicting data: this is no statement of the scientific method, just a fatalistic sense of resentment that we're doomed, we can't even marshal the smallest scrap of truth any longer, because the cards are stacked.

I vaguely remember the comments of one well known and accomplished scientist to the effect that the only difference between science and religion is that peer review testing occurs at a much accelerated rate ... so much for your ideas about them being diametrically opposed ...

My statement was in reference to the means by which their promulgation of the laws of nature arises, and that peer review in science is a fed-back closed loop system, whereas religions remain connected to the writings of antiquity, maintaining their core definition of nature, without questioning that these are established out of superstition, myth, fable and legend. In this regard, the peer review process of science places it at variance with the static conditions of religions.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Because it has padded out an argument identical to the one you posted.
Why else?


Noted that you don't have a response for the weakness of the information you quoted

Well my plan worked out perfectly..you( as i though you would) dismanteld the god gene hypotheses in less than a day. I thank you. when i first heard of it and watched the interview with the people who discoverd it my " bs" meter went off faster than watching a documentry on intelligent design or dare i say?....creationism. thanks for the entertainment. you trully are a skeptic of high measure may you live on and tear down the current " rational" thinking of this society! As for me i will continue to watch from afair..sincerely the Saturnine Pariah

 

[Aqueous Id]

my " bs" meter went off faster than watching a documentry on intelligent design or dare i say?....creationism. thanks for the entertainment. you trully are a skeptic of high measure may you live on and tear down the current " rational" thinking of this society! As for me i will continue to watch from afair..sincerely the Saturnine Pariah

In the event that you may actually happen to be experiencing a glum sense of ostracism, and in particular if it should happen to be on account of a lack of due recognition of any kind, allow me to offer that your express regard for common sense places you in a highly esteemed light--even by objective standards--but also which, in my humble estimation, exceed even the most emotive of subjective characterizations, to which I would personally add the often maligned yet truly heartfelt interjections: "way cool!", "far out!" and "bad-ass!", but only for my lack of a potentially more appropriate and sufficiently poignant vocabulary, and only after conducting a reasonable word search to convey my appreciation for your well considered opinions, which tend to leave me gratefully speechless, as may often happen in my own bouts of gloomy rejection.