Taking science on faith

[Heraclitus]

Np +1

[Blake]

Wouldn't "The firm belief in no gods" be Nulltheism?

[Proteus_MST]

One difference between most of natural science and religious faith IMHO is, that theories in natural science normally are based on reproducable experiments.

If you find out that under certain physical conditions a metal ball accelerates with 9.81 m/s² towards earth, you can be sure that you can get the same results if you reproduce te experiment under the same conditions (otherwise the theory can be falsified).

Not so for the works of the bible/Toah/Quran. for example, which normally aren´t reproducable (or even contradict observations, like for example fossil founds or just rational thinking)

I absolutely agree that when science asks why the natural laws are like they are (or what was before big bang) then it enters the dominion of religion, although this has to be a religions that has more in common with buddhism (which Blake already mentioned) than with any of the Abrahamix religions.

[Jon Miller]

Proteus:

A beleif in God is to religion like the belief in empiricism is to science.

The question of what happens to a ball near the earth is more akin to the question of whether all Christians should get circumcised or not. And there, religion using logic, and is internally consistent.

Additionally, for a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable, which means that it is possible for it to be falsified. Theories in science are not equivilent to beleifs in religion. Rather, theories in science are akin to practices or doctrines in religion. These change, just like theories change in science.

Additionally, sometimes something comes along and radically changes a fundamental assumption of religion, just like occasionally someone comes along and changes a fundamental assumption of science (lik e Einstien did).

One of the big issues is that scientists agree more together then the religious, because scientists get better and better tools/etc while the religious are generally stuck with observations 2000+ years old. Therefore the religious are end up needing to use the tools of literature and have issues of interpretation. Science also has issues of interpretation, but at least the tools are generally agreed upon.

Jon Miller

[Blake]

Originally posted by Zoid
I refuse to accept that there is no reason behind the universe. If there isn't any reason, what's the point of being here? Things don't just happen, they happen for a reason. We may not understand that reason yet, but we're getting there. Throughout human history man has searched for the meaning of life and existence. Why are things the way they are and not the other way around? Now you could handle this by saying that it's fundamentally reasonless, but I think that's a cop-out. We have an obligation to ourselves to strive for knowledge.

Yeah... but what if there actually is no reason behind the universe?

I've always supported the "Life is a cosmic accident" theory. To me that makes much more sense than there being a reason behind it.

I mean what reason could there be behind some molecules starting to self-reproduce?

Life did just fine for many billions of years without reasons, reasons are a purely human invention (although any sentient could invent them, nothing special about humans).

Just as man created god and not vice-verca, man created reason and not vice-verca.

It's really not that hard to understand.

“Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.”
--Confucius

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Blake


Yeah... but what if there actually is no reason behind the universe?

I've always supported the "Life is a cosmic accident" theory. To me that makes much more sense than there being a reason behind it.

I mean what reason could there be behind some molecules starting to self-reproduce?

You just change your argument to suit yourself. Buddha frowns upon you. Anyway, true buddhist wouldn't argue. A true buddhist would speak only the truth and nothing more. However, since truth doesn't exist in this world because it is an illusion, a true buddhist is mute. Chew on that!

[Blake]

But there's no sustenance in it .

[Ben Kenobi]

It is important that people who are scientists, or are interested in science, or who sing the praises of science, understand what assumptions are at the foundations of science. While it is true that science (and by science, I am refering to physics in particular) has a different (but not necessarily opposed) set of assumptions compared to religions, it is also true that like religion science is based upon beleifs, just like religion is. And it would do all of us who engage in these sorts of discussions, or who are interested in science, to understand them.

If I was ever to write a book, high on my list of books to write would be one on the foundational assumptions of science.

Very good post Jon. I would agree with them that there is a scientific creed or oath that defines what science is and how science is done. The principles therein are considered to be true at face value, and don't claim any underlying truths.

[Ben Kenobi]

No one ever says "Polytheism is a religion" or "Monotheism is a religion", so why then **** is saying "Atheism is a religion" any less nonsensical??

A belief (ie. dieties do not exist) is not " a set of beliefs", it is just one, singular, belief.

It would be possible to have an Atheistic religion, but Atheism in an of itself is no more a religion than Polytheism or Monotheism by themselves.

Good point.

We should separate the Marxist religion from the Darwinist religion, and both are different from the Neitzche religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

I propose that we abolish the notion of "natural law". It's so 18th century. Instead we should refer to the regular relationships of nature as "properties" - of gravity, of thermodynamics, of genetics, and etc., etc.

Properties isn't strong enough. I don't see what's wrong with natural law, because it implies there are rules which govern the universe.

[Blake]

Really, it's a description of what happens.

Of course the word "Law" or "Rule" has a dual meaning. Traditionally it means "This is what you must do, otherwise you risk punishment", while scientifically it means "This is what XYZ is like".

Things fall, that is what gravity is like.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by GePap


What is the point of there being a reason? Does it really change anything for there to be a meaning, or not? Will the earth stop spinning around the sun, or will plants stop photosynthsizing if it turns out there is no reason or meaning to any of it?

Of course not, but it will take some getting used to. It will have a profound effect on the human psyche imo. We are rational beings (well, most of us... ) and therefore I think it will be hard to accept that something so wonderful and intricate as the universe has been created by random chance...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Starchild


What's with this desire people have for there to be a reason or a point to existence? So what if there's no point to being alive. Things still are. You may be a brief collection of atoms and aspirations but you still love and lust, grieve and mourn. So what if in the whole of eternity that means absolutely nothing? So what if its a collection of chemical interactions proceeding down a negative slope toward entropy? It still happens. It still matters, even if only to you. Spend all your time trying to find a point for existing and you'll never give any time to being the the point of existing.

That's a very good point. I suppose I'm looking for reason in the universe because I can't find any reason for my own existence. So by being a part of something bigger than me, that makes sense, it doesn't feel as bad.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Blake


Yeah... but what if there actually is no reason behind the universe?

I've always supported the "Life is a cosmic accident" theory. To me that makes much more sense than there being a reason behind it.

I mean what reason could there be behind some molecules starting to self-reproduce?

Life did just fine for many billions of years without reasons, reasons are a purely human invention (although any sentient could invent them, nothing special about humans).

Just as man created god and not vice-verca, man created reason and not vice-verca.

It's really not that hard to understand.

“Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.”
--Confucius

The question is: why is there something instead of nothing? For some molecules to start to reproduce, the natural laws must be a certain way to allow it. Same with all things in the universe. The fact that life has evolved by random chance, given all the things that must happen before that, is so unplausible that I belive the universe was created for life to exist.

[Wittlich]

"The primortial goo" theory (Q - StarTrek Generations) - Cool explaination by the way (given by Q)