The Official Religion of Sciforums?

[kx000]

What if there is a consciousness to the universe which maybe evolved together that is greater than our own who thought Himself into existence with the idea of self, and other?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

do you count multiverses as 'the' universe?

I count multiverses as pure speculation. Last time I checked, there was no evidence to support the hypothesis.

Nonetheless, unlike religion, it does not claim to falsify the basic premises of science. So, unlike religion, it is not antiscience.

 

[kx000]

I count multiverses as pure speculation. Last time I checked, there was no evidence to support the hypothesis.

Nonetheless, unlike religion, it does not claim to falsify the basic premises of science. So, unlike religion, it is not antiscience.

What is that premise? As far as time travel... idk

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What is that premise?

The fundamental premise that is the basis of the scientific method and therefore underlies all science:

The natural universe is a closed system [using the layman's definition of that term, not the physicist's], whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.​

Religion is antiscience because its basis is the hypothesis that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which fantastic creatures and incredible forces emerge on random occasions, to perturb the behavior of the natural universe; and because this hypothesis is offered without evidence of any kind, merely the occasional tortilla (out of billions) with a scorch mark that is said to resemble the face of a person who lived in Biblical times, of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it.

Because this hypothesis claims to falsify the scientific method (which has been tested exhaustively for half a millennium and never come close to falsification) and therefore falsify science itself, it clearly qualifies as an extraordinary assertion.

At this point the Rule of Laplace is automatically invoked:

Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.​

This rule is fundamental to science, because without it the extremely finite resources of science would be quickly dissipated in formally testing and disproving every bit of crackpottery that is brought to the doors of the academy.

This is why I consistently treat all religion with aggressive disrespect and contempt. Science is under siege.

 

[charles brough]

To be fair no religion has made God pleased enough to reveal himself. So in terms of science how can we make God happy enough to reveal himself?

I guess the first thing would be what is God like? How did his existence begin? Did it begin? How would he be if he were a human? Did we all come from him? If so, then we can take a global census on each persons morality to see if he is more hot, or more cold. If he is hot then we can assume to make him happy we would have to be kind and fair to one another.

Can we here on Sciforums establish a scientific religion of God?

Sounds like a good question to me. However, I doubt it would be possible in this forum as everyone seems to be dealing more in philosophy than in science.

I would approach it this way: from a realistic atheistic perspective, look at religions as being believed because they serve some vital function rather than because they are "true." What could that function be? The logical answer is that a common belief system enables people to feel a sense of community and unity that is essential in agreeing on how to solve common problems.

But what happens when the religious bond becomes old and divided---divided because it has grown old. It can no longer serve its function. The advance of human knowledge has left it behind. The monotheistic religions replaced the polytheistic ones, and now it is time for a non-theistic one to replace the monotheistic ones. We need an advanced new belief system or ideology capable of doing that. None that we have now has shown itself able to do that.

 

[Sarkus]

The logical answer is that a common belief system enables people to feel a sense of community and unity that is essential in agreeing on how to solve common problems.

And we have secular means of this now, and on a global scale. There is no need for such archaic versions of religion.
The new "religion" - if that is to be the name for it - is to be found in the telecommunication systems... our ritual of logging on, of tweeting, of blogging.
For some this is as religious as football, or possibly more so.

In my view religion has no place in Sciforums, other than as a topic of discussion.

 

[charles brough]

And we have secular means of this now, and on a global scale. There is no need for such archaic versions of religion.
The new "religion" - if that is to be the name for it - is to be found in the telecommunication systems... our ritual of logging on, of tweeting, of blogging.
For some this is as religious as football, or possibly more so.

In my view religion has no place in Sciforums, other than as a topic of discussion.

In my view, you are simply dismissing a subject dealing with human dependence upon ideological systems that goes back as far as about 70,000 years ago. It is a view that the social sciences have no position in science because they are subjective but then giving in and expressing that subjectivity itself. Even as an atheist, I have to accept that ideological systems shape such societies as Islam, the Christian West, the Marxist block, etc. and that we could not function without what unity of belief they provide, what sense of community and enough unity of belief to be able to solve common problems.

In these times, we depend upon Secular Humanism to provide a common way of thinking which we try to impose on the whole world so we can solve common world problems. I don't see tweeting, blogging and telecommunication systems solving them. What are they doing now but failing to impose our secular system well enough to solve common world problems, ones such as global warming, terrorism, obesity/hunger, nuclear proliferation, diminishing world resources and over-population? If secular humanism cannot unite the world well enough to deal effectively with them, we need a better system with which to do it. . .

Brough,
http://civilization-overview.com

 

[charles brough]

What if there is a consciousness to the universe which maybe evolved together that is greater than our own who thought Himself into existence with the idea of self, and other?

This seems to be a metaphysics representation of the Bible. Would this "Consciousness" be able to alter natural cause and effect? If so, it is a form of theism, if not it is a deism form.

Brough
http://civilization-overview.com