The newest religion

[TheVisitor]

Science in itself is the most deceptive of all religions.

Consider the work of author Charles Fort.

The Book of the Damned was the first published nonfiction work of the author Charles Fort (first edition 1919).

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

Dealing with various types of anomalous phenomena including UFOs, strange falls of both organic and inorganic materials from the sky, odd weather patterns, the possible existence of creatures generally held to be mythological, disappearances of people under strange circumstances, and many other phenomena, the book is historically considered to be the first written in the specific field of anomalistics.

The title of the book referred to what he termed the "damned" data - data which had been damned, or excluded, by modern science because of its not conforming to accepted guidelines.

The way Fort sees it, mainstream scientists are trend followers who believe in what is accepted and popular, and never really look for a truth that may be contrary to what they believe.

He also compares the close-mindedness of many scientists to that of religious fundamentalists, implying that the supposed "battle" between science and religion is just a smokescreen for the fact that, in his view, science is, in essence, simply a de facto religion in of itself.

 

[heliocentric]

Hes absolutely right, humans are generaly dogma-driven creatures, very very few people are actually able to embrace the true nihilism of the scientific method and instead treat the scientific consensus as scared doctrine.

Its amazing how many people opperate under the mis-apprehension that simply algining yourself with the current consensus is 'being scientific'. In real terms it isnt atall its simply religiosity.
Being scientific is actually probing the unknown and atempting to explain the unexplainable.

 

[zenbabelfish]

I think Thomas Kuhn had a better angle on this...science only moves forwards by providing the null hypothesis.
Things have moved on since Fort although scientists appear to be practising ritualistic and dogmatic behaviours that could be misconceived as religious; this of course is amplified by those outside of science who use (believe)and disseminate data without understanding it or referencing it properly. Also everyone practices ritualistic behaviour whether theist or atheist - so this negates Forts description.
A self-aware scientist operates from first-principles, provides a null hypothesis, and makes no allowance for top-down religious sentiment.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Vizzie...this book deals with paranormal phenomena inclusive of "UFO sightings", "Loch Ness Monsters", "Sargasso Sea" etc etc etc. All unsubstantiated claims of supernormal events, with absolutely no repeatable or empirical evidence or sometimes not even scientific basis.

People claiming these things are as per norm simply asked for proof. When being unable to do so, they are placed in the same category as religion...claims which are unlikely to be true. There's no 'censorship' or 'damnation' by the scientific community. Granted these folks get laughed at...but that is so forgivable, when you claim a 30 foot long green dragon-snake nosed your boat, or your a$$ was probed by a little grey 3-fingered creature...and you can't PROVE it.

What, do you expect the AMA to excommunicate people from medical attention because they're paranormal enthusiasts?

Your attempt to parallel science with religion is useless, and far too oft a tactic.

Keep in mind your source author...a journalist and largely unsuccessful sci fi writer. Hardly a trained psychologist. Plus Fort himself is quoted as saying "I believe nothing of my own that I have ever written"...i.e. multiple theories can fit facts discovered, and perhaps that his own writings may or may have any basis in reality.

Vizzie...maybe his "theory" that science is a religion is one of those convenient assumptions that are completely wrong?

 

[TheVisitor]

Just thought I'd stir the hornet's nest a little bit.
Not near the response I thought I'd get.

Yes Enterprise, you have some points....but....
There's always a "but" isn't there?

I have observed this same behavior in science still yet today.
His books were written well before the UFO craze that started in '47, and the Sargasso Sea phenomna are what started the current interest in whats now called the Bermuda Triangle......

He coined the phrase "teleportation", and metamorphosis is a fact of life.
We are all just tadpoles in the muddy waters of life, are we not?

He had a valid point still as valid today as one hundred years ago.
Science is a religion, and a faithless one at that.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Just ask Oppenheimer if that knowledge they found was used for good.
It never will be.
Not till the root of evil is removed from the heart of man.
The Kingdom.....is in you, remember.

 

[zenbabelfish]

What religious symbolism and tenets does science use?

 

[TheVisitor]

Lets start with the AMA....you're onto one of my pet peeves now.
What symbolism....?
The serpent on the pole.

The symbol of divine healing.
Jesus Christ became sinful flesh, a man as one of us to do away with the curse on mankind and bring healing to our souls.
He was actually the One on the pole....which is the cross, so why is He symbolized as a serpent.
Can you do the math?
The serpents influence over man is what He came to destroy.

And they...the AMA, have latched on to that symbol to express the small part God has given to the medical profession in the physical healing of man.
It was therefor a sacred trust.....one many have now broken, the Hippocratic oath.

What, do you expect the AMA to excommunicate people from medical attention because they're paranormal enthusiasts?

Yes I do, and for a lot less than that.
I personally know one doctor coming back from ten years in China, who was told by the AMA if he spoke of the cures they have for cancer over there....He would have his license revoked.

Your attempt to parallel science with religion is useless, and far too oft a tactic.

Look at all the pharmaceutical companies with their adds running non-stop on T.V.....
"Ask your doctor if this might be right for you".....
With them knowing full well the "placebo effect" has a psychosomatic influence on a certain percentage that hears those adds.

Thats why fast food companies force "suggestive sell" techniques on all their employees.
You go through the "dive" through at Micky Dee's for a "happy meal"...and they ask if you want an apple pie with that......right?
Of course they do.
They know what they are doing.


They are not looking for cures.....that wouldn't bring a profit to their shareholders.
They are looking for expensive ongoing "treatments"....that also cause side effects that have to be latter addressed with still more of their drugs.

The last real major disease that was totally cured.....was Polio in 1954.
Salk's wife had the disease.
So he went all the way and cured it.
They never let that happen with their resources again.

You still like that tree your eating from?

 

[zenbabelfish]

AMA...is that the American Medical Association? That is not a scientific body, its a medical one. Also the Caduceus is a symbol of the healer not the scientist.

 

[TheVisitor]

You keep telling yourself that......
Science isn't a religion, science isn't a religion, ect....

Do it enough times and you may just start believing it, like all those elderly people they target with their adds watching non-stop, back to back "Lipitor" commericals on the "Hallmark channel".

Repetition does have a certain effect.
But that won't make it true.

Try to become an Archaeologist, or a Doctor, or a Nuclear Physicist....
You'll find out quick how alive and well the ""no allowance for top-down religious sentiment" theory still is today.

You don't get your shingle....unless you do it their way.

Stand against them and that makes you a single "quack" against all of their "certified" experts.
Sounds like Elijah against the 400 schooled prophets of Ahab to me.

Things haven't changed that much.
Science is just the new false religion.

 

[zenbabelfish]

So, what religious symbols and tenets does science use?

 

[TheVisitor]

What.... medicine isn't supposed to be based on science?

It doesn't count?

Symbols don't make or break my statement here anyway......I haven't looked into it.

You are missing the point here I'm afraid.

Whether or not science has adopted some religious symbol is not required to make it a religion.
It is a religion.
More than just a religion, it has the backing of governments.
The same governments under the before mentioned influence.

It should all make sense to anyone looking.

It is that strange but true law of opposites at work.
Going back to where this started, on a world influenced by powers of "the damned"....
Should not a book that dares to uncover truth against the tide be called a "Book of the damned"?

They called Jesus, Beelzebub.....remember.
That's just how it works here.
Sad, but true.

 

[zenbabelfish]

How would you define a religion and what makes science a religion?

 

[TheVisitor]

Sorry....let's try this,
"Ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth"

Go look that up and read the context of the whole statement.

 

[zenbabelfish]

Then science will appear to you as a religion but not to everyone. Good luck - interesting thread

 

[TheVisitor]

You are right about that.
Not to everyone.

Very few will lift their heads from the trough, while moving down that wide heavy trodden path of least resistance that leads to destruction.

Straight is the way and narrow the gate, and few there be that find it.
Good luck to you as well.

 

[heliocentric]

Vizzie...this book deals with paranormal phenomena inclusive of "UFO sightings", "Loch Ness Monsters", "Sargasso Sea" etc etc etc. All unsubstantiated claims of supernormal events, with absolutely no repeatable or empirical evidence or sometimes not even scientific basis.

How exactly do you think empirical data is aquired in the first place?
I think youre putting the cart before the horse here.
All substantiated knowledge starts out with someone going out on a limb without clear evidence either way, i mean i hate to tear down anyones illusion of how accepted knowledge becomes 'accepted' but the foundation of knowledge essentially rests on people taking a chance/going out on a limb.
You also made a false claim - ufos (or saucer shaped craft) are a verfiable form of arial phenomena with so much empirical evidence in favour of their existance that noone seriously atempts to claim that they dont exist anymore.

People claiming these things are as per norm simply asked for proof. When being unable to do so,

Really depends on whats being investigated to be honest, i dare say most of its based on varying quantities of evidence, along with abit of faith, and personal experience/bias. These are generally the ingredients apon which 'substantial evidence' are aquired.

Your attempt to parallel science with religion is useless, and far too oft a tactic.

I dont think anyones claiming science are religion are the same - obviously there are clear differences. But the problem of dogma and bias exists in science whether you like it or not, infact this is the entire basis of the 'double blind test'.
You cant trust people *not* to skew the findings and simply champion their version of the truth in favour of the objective.

Keep in mind your source author...a journalist and largely unsuccessful sci fi writer. Hardly a trained psychologist.

He doesnt need to be, just about every scientist worth their salt understands the problem of dogma in science, thats why it generally takes an entire generation for new ideas (not matter how well proven) to be accepted.

 

[Dinosaur]

Yes, mainstream science is indeed dogmatic in refusing to give up current beliefs when new ideas are presented.

Compare classical physics which dominated mainstream science for a few hundred years until about 1905. Relativity and Quantum theory were developed between about 1905 & 1925 by far sighted physicists. Mainstream physics never accepted these new ideas. They stuck with classical physics.

If physicists had not been so close minded, we might have developed lasers, computers, solid state devices, and all sorts of wonderful technology.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Yes, mainstream science is indeed dogmatic in refusing to give up current beliefs when new ideas are presented.

Compare classical physics which dominated mainstream science for a few hundred years until about 1905. Relativity and Quantum theory were developed between about 1905 & 1925 by far sighted physicists. Mainstream physics never accepted these new ideas. They stuck with classical physics.

If physicists had not been so close minded, we might have developed lasers, computers, solid state devices, and all sorts of wonderful technology.

The proof is in the pudding Dinosaur. You cannot expect science to blindly accept what could turn out to be a flight of fancy. Yes relativity turned out to be right...but it required proof!

Using this logic you can 'demand' that 'open minded' astro-physicists accept the existence of heaven!

 

[Athelwulf]

Science in itself is the most deceptive of all religions.

I stopped reading here. I don't even know what you said, but I'm sure it's stupid.

 

[Enterprise-D]

How exactly do you think empirical data is aquired in the first place?
I think youre putting the cart before the horse here.
All substantiated knowledge starts out with someone going out on a limb without clear evidence either way, i mean i hate to tear down anyones illusion of how accepted knowledge becomes 'accepted' but the foundation of knowledge essentially rests on people taking a chance/going out on a limb.
You also made a false claim - ufos (or saucer shaped craft) are a verfiable form of arial phenomena with so much empirical evidence in favour of their existance that noone seriously atempts to claim that they dont exist anymore.

All you say? Really? Did someone go out on a limb at started raving that 2 + 2 is 4? Perhaps there was no clear evidence either way that fire is hot? Let's get tricky here...how about going out on a limb to say some force that keeps us planted on earth exists? hm?

Helio, you're using semantics to justify the opening question. ALL knowledge does not start with a wild guess ... as opposed to observation. Some I will grant, however, these 'wild guesses' MUST still be proven. How does this make science anywhere close to a religion? Religion's wild guesses fly with no proof whatsoever! (Ooh! Limbo exists!....<later> Ooh! Limbo doesn't exist!)

Conversely: science may be very process driven and extremely dependant on ceremony, but these are descriptive and very versatile words. Ceremony for one endeavour does not equal that of another.

Really depends on whats being investigated to be honest, i dare say most of its based on varying quantities of evidence, along with abit of faith, and personal experience/bias. These are generally the ingredients apon which 'substantial evidence' are aquired.

You're speaking of driving forces and intangibles here, mixed in with evidence to seem as if you're only talking about evidence. An AI, given the same input data will come up with the scientific fact that water boils at 100 degrees C the same way a human would. LOL I wonder who went out on a limb to wildly guess this claim?

I dont think anyones claiming science are religion are the same - obviously there are clear differences. But the problem of dogma and bias exists in science whether you like it or not, infact this is the entire basis of the 'double blind test'.
You cant trust people *not* to skew the findings and simply champion their version of the truth in favour of the objective.

Vizzie is:

Science in itself is the most deceptive of all religions.

He doesnt need to be, just about every scientist worth their salt understands the problem of dogma in science, thats why it generally takes an entire generation for new ideas (not matter how well proven) to be accepted.

You are attempting to place religious attributes to science (and interchanging 'dogma' with 'red tape' ).

A dogma is absolute and unchallengeable. While it may be true that if an individual challenges a tenet of science he finds himself in an extremely stressful battle; if said individual has evidence to back himself up he will be justified. Try challenging a Scientology or JW authority and see how quickly you'll be slapped down, brainwashed or ignored (or worse).

As a simple example, scientific texts undergo periodic revisions to correct any theory that may have been inaccurate, or to add new discoveries. The only revisions religious texts undergo is translation into other languages. The quran, the bible et al are accepted as infallible.

How is science dogmatic again?