Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

11. Excellent post. I really like this writer's takes on areas where the lines get

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:24 PM

Nov 2012

crossed, like stonehenge. And his proposal about how aliens would view things like the pyramids and the supercollider.

Overall, it is, imo, a fascinating concept worth exploring and thinking about.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

147 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The dictionary is wrong – science can be a religion too [View all] cbayer Nov 2012 OP

Pretty standard human behavior; change the definition to fit the times so as to stay relevant. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #1

That's what human brains do, put a different set of how-tos on it & you have science. The point of patrice Nov 2012 #30

For the most part, yes. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #31

Looks as though we just decided, below, that we're not going away. Later. patrice Nov 2012 #36

nothing but word games. science cannot be a religion. bowens43 Nov 2012 #2

His argument is that the definition needs to be changed/expanded. cbayer Nov 2012 #4

All is in process/negotiation and I seem to be a verb > how is at least as important as what. patrice Nov 2012 #14

It is the essence of science that it is not-religion/ous, so to that extent, through negation of patrice Nov 2012 #22

Science is subject to rapid and often radical changes Warpy Nov 2012 #3

OTOH, sometimes the rigidity of certain scientific beliefs can impede scientific progress. cbayer Nov 2012 #5

"radical change in science is particularly slow to be accepted or embraced" trotsky Nov 2012 #6

Way to build an inherently flawed argument. TalkingDog Nov 2012 #15

What? trotsky Nov 2012 #43

Plate tectonics. SheilaT Nov 2012 #102

Thanks, but that's not the point. trotsky Nov 2012 #104

Gosh. You're going to use your own definition of SheilaT Nov 2012 #105

Gosh, no I'm not. trotsky Nov 2012 #106

You need to educate yourself before spouting such nonsense skepticscott Nov 2012 #108

I'd still like one of these people to establish the standard of Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #147

not particularly slow, however DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #128

Oh, please..tell us how Lord Kelvin's skepticscott Nov 2012 #131

the fact that Lord Kelvin could say that DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #140

Nice try at BS skepticscott Nov 2012 #141

Look here DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #144

Thank you for confirming there's nothing "particularly slow" about scientific progress. trotsky Nov 2012 #133

eh? DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #138

Yes, humans are a interesting bunch. trotsky Nov 2012 #139

Thomas R. Kuhn says that rigidity is actually part of the dynamic of scientific revolutions. patrice Nov 2012 #18

Challenge "destroys" and/or strengthens. nt patrice Nov 2012 #23

Please be specific as to.. rexcat Nov 2012 #34

We will see no response. trotsky Nov 2012 #44

I knew she would not respond... rexcat Nov 2012 #55

"Radical change" in science skepticscott Nov 2012 #60

Your desire for "dialogue" is exposed as bogus...yet again skepticscott Nov 2012 #111

Yeah... history doesn't bear out your statements. It "can" happen that way. TalkingDog Nov 2012 #9

Excellent post. I really like this writer's takes on areas where the lines get cbayer Nov 2012 #11

I doubt your statement Confusious Nov 2012 #51

If "history is rife with examples" skepticscott Nov 2012 #61

Apparently I was right skepticscott Nov 2012 #64

Of course you were. trotsky Nov 2012 #69

And wow...do the religionists and apologists here have no shame skepticscott Nov 2012 #71

Still waiting for those examples skepticscott Nov 2012 #96

"Somehow"? How the hell can you say "somehow they are not guilty of faulty thinking..."? muriel_volestrangler Nov 2012 #136

Wow...guess history wasn't as rife as you pretended skepticscott Nov 2012 #142

Too many believe in scientific facts without understanding them. DetlefK Nov 2012 #7

My college had a science requirement, of course, which many who were cbayer Nov 2012 #8

THANK YOU! see my post above. TalkingDog Nov 2012 #10

Yes! If we don't understand the HOW of something, how can we know its significance? patrice Nov 2012 #17

IOW, as polling just so clearly illustrated, significance is way more than a statistical formula(e). patrice Nov 2012 #19

String-theory.->"Strings" that "vibrate".->Sound is a vibration.->You can heal a person.... AlbertCat Nov 2012 #77

Mathematically formalized as Tarski's Undefinability Theorem bananas Nov 2012 #99

Form and content. rrneck Nov 2012 #12

and also: "how" is not just what steps, but the order of those steps themselves is a manifestation patrice Nov 2012 #32

Form follows function. Mostly. rrneck Nov 2012 #37

Agree. The lines are not also that clear. cbayer Nov 2012 #38

I've always liked that one . . . for the DOING of it. patrice Nov 2012 #41

Utter rubbish argument. longship Nov 2012 #13

He would agree that using the OED definition of religion, science could not be classified as cbayer Nov 2012 #16

Well, you may be able to predict my response. longship Nov 2012 #21

You are making his point for him in your first paragraph, don't you think? cbayer Nov 2012 #24

Maybe only his premise. longship Nov 2012 #45

What to you constitutes an inordinate interest in religion? cbayer Nov 2012 #46

Thanks! longship Nov 2012 #47

Actually, unless I am reading this wrong, he does draw a distinction between cbayer Nov 2012 #48

I listen to the Bible Geek podcast every week. longship Nov 2012 #50

That's stupid, aliens would most likely instantly recognize the LHC for what it is... Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #52

These attempts are typically an effort to "absorb" non-belief/atheism/science. trotsky Nov 2012 #59

Just a note to myself here to follow up on demarcation problems, later, I am doing laundry & stuff patrice Nov 2012 #39

Thanks. longship Nov 2012 #49

Two of the Most Prominent Writers on Belief Systems, On the Road Nov 2012 #20

Thank you for this. Time to go find Eric Hoffer in a stack of crates of books around here somewhere. patrice Nov 2012 #25

I like the idea of a reading list and even a book club kind of approach. cbayer Nov 2012 #27

I would support that by getting one of my own suggestion + someone else's suggested book on my patrice Nov 2012 #35

Never Read Albert North Whitehead On the Road Nov 2012 #62

He makes the point that there was likely ritual and dogma before there was religion. cbayer Nov 2012 #26

true a belief in god is evidence of a gullible personality choice Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #28

What is a "gullible personality choice"? cbayer Nov 2012 #29

Which god? What's a god? IF there were such a thing that could be called a "G/god" would we patrice Nov 2012 #33

using language one may talk about all sorts of fictional entities Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #40

There are none who live off of the lives of others? Would NOT exist were it not for that? patrice Nov 2012 #42

who decides when a miracle is supernatural and when its not? Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #57

Total bullshit based on buildings Confusious Nov 2012 #53

Science and math are not faith TrogL Nov 2012 #54

well to be fair Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #56

add even though math is abstract it doesnt require faith though Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #58

I'm not sure he really understands what science is. Bradical79 Nov 2012 #63

Scientism is a religion without a god. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #65

Please show your definition for "scientism" and "religion". TrogL Nov 2012 #66

It really doesn't need to be explained. humblebum Nov 2012 #67

'impressionism' was a perjorative term that Phillip McCleod Nov 2012 #68

Whether or not you agree doesn't matter. The word is widely used and has an defined meaning. humblebum Nov 2012 #70

The word "unicorn" skepticscott Nov 2012 #73

You must be really, really bored, SS. cleanhippie Nov 2012 #75

Outing liars is my new hobby skepticscott Nov 2012 #76

"Outing liars is my new hobby" and lying is your old one. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #80

I'll out you again skepticscott Nov 2012 #81

Well I guess such a list would be ridiculously long and go back quite a ways in time, but humblebum Nov 2012 #84

Epic fail skepticscott Nov 2012 #85

Now you are admitting that there are other ways of knowing again. humblebum Nov 2012 #88

It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to ... AlbertCat Nov 2012 #78

You have already intimated that there are indeed humblebum Nov 2012 #79

No, I've intimated that some lame folk CLAIM skepticscott Nov 2012 #82

Those so-called "lame folk" are those who don't share your very narrow point of view. You humblebum Nov 2012 #83

No, those lame folk skepticscott Nov 2012 #86

SS. You are truly the spin master. humblebum Nov 2012 #87

Ah, I see skepticscott Nov 2012 #89

And you plainly have nothing. But at least we have established that there humblebum Nov 2012 #90

But at least we have established that there are indeed other ways of knowing AlbertCat Nov 2012 #92

You appear to be the epitome of scientism by considering humblebum Nov 2012 #93

Repeating the same unsubstantiated bullshit over and over skepticscott Nov 2012 #94

Show me where i have actually mouthed those words. However, when humblebum Nov 2012 #95

the epitome of scientism AlbertCat Nov 2012 #97

The subject of Other Ways of Knowing has been hashed and rehashed countless times here humblebum Nov 2012 #98

they do exist and are given credibility by many. AlbertCat Nov 2012 #100

Nothing biased about your line of thought LOL. humblebum Nov 2012 #101

Religion is a made up word, too. AlbertCat Nov 2012 #109

Don't hold your breath skepticscott Nov 2012 #110

Don't hold your breath AlbertCat Nov 2012 #112

So who poo poos science? I use and rely on it on a regular basis. It is humblebum Nov 2012 #115

No one has ever, in the history of the world, claimed skepticscott Nov 2012 #117

So no one has ever made an attempt to establish a unified theory of science? Interesting. humblebum Nov 2012 #121

As predicted skepticscott Nov 2012 #116

And I see you are lying as usual right on schedule. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #122

Prove it skepticscott Nov 2012 #132

Not too sure exactly what you are waiting for, but happy waiting. All anyone needs do humblebum Nov 2012 #137

Been addressed by quite a few more than just myself. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #114

Been addressed by quite a few more than just myself. AlbertCat Nov 2012 #119

Like I said, look it up for yourself. Subject's been discussed ad nauseum in the group. nt humblebum Nov 2012 #113

have difficulty grasping AlbertCat Nov 2012 #120

So who decides what is real and what is not? If the limits of your reality are humblebum Nov 2012 #123

If the limits of your reality are that which can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched/felt AlbertCat Nov 2012 #124

Who is attacking science? No one. humblebum Nov 2012 #125

Who is attacking science? No one. AlbertCat Nov 2012 #126

Just how is scientism an attack on science? humblebum Nov 2012 #127

I think the problem is this, "Scientism" as it were, seems to be a term that was... Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #72

Expect bummy to jump in here with his usual lie skepticscott Nov 2012 #74

And like clockwork, he does skepticscott Nov 2012 #118

Actually, the"soft" sciences use the same methodology, the Scientific Method, and humblebum Nov 2012 #130

But not the same rigor, because its not possible, either due to practical or ethical concerns... Humanist_Activist Nov 2012 #134

You sound like there is some organized conspiracy to appear as something that they are not and humblebum Nov 2012 #135

Dude, seriously. 2ndAmForComputers Nov 2012 #145

Almost anything CAN be treated as a religion LeftishBrit Nov 2012 #91

Perhaps there should be a separate thread, SheilaT Nov 2012 #103

Isn't that the truth. And some, but not enough, do *good deeds* as well. cbayer Nov 2012 #107

let's be careful DonCoquixote Nov 2012 #129

...and if my granmother had nuts, she'd be my grandfather Taverner Nov 2012 #143

Having read the blogpost I can say nonsense intaglio Nov 2012 #146