Modern Science Is A Religion! Prove Me Wrong...
Science is Better Than Religion
It cannot be disputed - science is better than religion.
By that I mean knowledge is better than superstition, because that's what those words really mean in today's English. It's better to know than to believe. No one can dispute that, it's self-evident.
religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
science: a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Belief is basically worthless, only knowledge has any real functional value. Belief is of no use to the scientist, it's only a hindrance.
I Love Science
Science - knowledge - is what it's all about on planet Earth... That's why were here - to learn the truth - and act on it.
But is modern science 100% scientific, or is it a bit superstitious too?
superstition: excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.
supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Modern Science's Dirty Secret
It seems that a large part of modern science is founded on a principle which is supernatural, and quite unscientific.
It's a principle so embedded in science, that people take it for granted and crucially: Never think it through for themselves...
This is modern science's embarrasment, and it makes it a superstition, and a religion, and not science at all...
Yes, modern science is a religion, because it believes in a supernatural deity - beyond the laws of nature.
This deity is called 'Chance' and she is invoked by scientists, just as any supernatural spirit may be, by any priest.
Chance is the 'anti-christ' of science, it's nemesis, it's antithesis... Chance negates, undermines, and overturns science.
It's a completely illogical concept.
Random Chance is a Blind God
random: made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.
Without method.
Or, to use the 'scientific' term (rolls eyes):
acausal: not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect.
If something is truly random, and has no cause, then it is outside of the laws of nature, and outside the scope of science.
All knowledge comes in the form of cause-and-effect, and science can only deal with cause and effect.
Every scientific paper ever written deals with causes and their effects. This is all that science is and can be.
If something existed that was a causeless effect it would break science.
It would also have to be outside nature - because everything we observe in nature is the result of a prior cause.
Logic Dictates: Universe Was Created By an Intelligent God.
The only alternative theory for the creation of the Universe put forward by modern science is that the Universe was created by a 'random quantum flutuation', and that evolution progressed by 'random' mutation.
'Random' is the only alternative put forward. No other.
That's because, logically it's a binary choice. There can only be two options... They've got nothing else.
The Universe had to have been created by something, and that something had to be either intelligent, or unintelligent. These are the only possibilities.
Random is an unintelligent creator: Something that can effect changes to nature, without being part of nature, but without any reason or plan.
This is ridiculous, and an insult to logic and my limited intelligence.
Given the choice between an intelligent creator, and random static as the cause of reality, only one makes any sense at all.
I'm happy to debate this with anyone who can formulate a proper argument. Please try to prove me wrong.
Thanks for reading.
:)
For modern science not everything needs to be caused. The ontological causality is a dogma already disproved by science, which only uses the methodological causality.
So far science knows the following uncaused and spontaneous events: radioactive decay, Casimir effect, quantum entanglement, quantum tunneling, the quantum vacuum fluctuations, Hawking radiation, virtual particles.
Hi, thanks for your reply...
But what is their proof that these things are actually uncaused, versus the possibility that the mechanism is simply unknown?
There is none, and there can be none...
The null hypothesis states that is it impossible to prove an absence of something, such as cause.
So it's logically impossible for the things you mention to have been proven to be 'uncaused'... You are mistaken.
Causality cannot be 'disproven' by science, because proof requires causality...!!!
You have proven my point that modern science is a religion resting on faith and belief, and it's followers are unfamiliar with logic. Thank you.
Proof in science does not require causation, only requires experimentation. The radioactive decay for example, we abandoned causality for it, but it is proven, even without a cause. And the absence of cause is the explanation most accepted today. We have no reason to assume the ontological and absolute causality, without having how to prove this dogma, and I don't think that one day we will be able to prove that causality is always a necessity.
If radioactive decay is 'random', then how can we explain the fact that it varies during the course of a year?
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/radioactive-decay-rates-vary-during-the-year.212315/
Radioactive decay is not random, it is probabilistic. They are different concepts. We can say what is the probability of decay happening, but we can not be sure that it will happen. The probability of the decay is determined, but the exact when the decay will happen is not.
It may seem counterintuitive to say that causality is not an absolute truth, but in reality it only exists in the macro world. When we go to the subatomic world, many of our intuitions are not worth anything.
There is a logical fallacy: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Can you offer any proof that there is no underlying causality?
The example I just gave about decay rates strongly suggests there is a mechanism at work...
Absence of evidence is yes evidence of absence. Most things you do not believe in life is solely due to lack of evidence to support them. Otherwise we would have to be agnostic about almost everything in life.
Causality is a dogma
I want to be proven wrong ok let's start by saying science is not trying to eliminate God, but provides signs that go exist, check this out, u must watch this I have many more profs
Nothing personal, but the argument that Islam is the correct religion based on a "golden mean" figure has so many holes in it it's not even considerable as a smoking gun by any scientific or theological point of view.
Thank you for your reply I can give you other scientific facts to confirm Quran is the words of God, but that will only benefit u if u are truethful person, and a man of understanding I would also ask u to do ur own research on Islam and science u will be amazed. or check some of my blog post about science and Islam. @cryptosteem
Hi @cryptosteem,
How does having the death-sentence for apostasy encourage science?
Science is finished I reckon, the standard model of physics is no more and the peer review system has been utterly corrupted by powerful vested interests manipulating the results to suit their stockholders portfolios. As for the comparatively recent battle between faith and reason, its seems as if reason has lost.
We are not a reasonable or rational species at all and never will be, if you doubt this have a look at any TV news channel, whats on there is not the work of a rational species is it? We are capable of rationalising but thats about it.
The big thing about God is that he doesn't make any sense at all, I do think you should read some theology to see what your opponents believe and think before you come on here loaded for Bear.
Chuckle. No idea what 'loaded for Bear' means... :)
Science is a mess. People are a mess. TV is the perfect example, you're right about that... Right about rationalising too - that's 'thinking' for the permanently asleep...
I've read plenty theology. I know what they think, and I disagree with most of it. And there's a better answer too... None of it's rocket science, just simple logic.
Humans can be either logical or illogical, we have two brains and two minds to choose from. Yin is illogical and competitive, Yang is logical and cooperative. It's our choice, but Yin is the default.
The Yang mind is the one we should be working on. That's the path to freedom... :)
Your definition of logic rests solely on empirical data. My definition of logic goes beyond our flawed human ability to describe the universe -- because it has to. There are many things that science cannot explain, and some things that science will likely never explain. Modern science had to adopt faith because technology has opened and shut too many doors for foot planting conclusions to occur more than rarely. This is due to the fact that some things defy what you or I would define as "logical". An exhausting argument in semantics is all we have without considering the supernatural. Our universe is not as black and white as your argument is trying to make it seem.
You're entitled to disagree with all the theology you want, but that doesn't make it false. That only makes it your opinion against their experience. Science can only describe. It cannot explain.
Hi @madmovond, are you saying that you think science and superstition are compatible?
I think science is absolutely about black and white. It's about facts, right & wrong, true & false... That's it's whole purpose.
What things do you think defy logic? I can't think of any.
If one can prove a theory/theology wrong by logic, then that does make it false, so I'd have to say you're wrong about that.
Science absolutely can explain things, in terms of cause and effect. It'd be useless if it couldn't.
Hello @veritopian! I do think that science and superstition/religion are compatible. They are separate in many ways, but very much intertwined and compliment each other often in my experience.
There are a lot of people who have stories of things that defy any known logic. I've had experiences that land in that category. Now, in a world of skeptics, who is going to believe these stories unless they were there too? You have to experience the illogical for yourself to grasp that there is a supernatural element to our universe. If you haven't, you have no reason to believe it because it's in opposition to your own confirmation bias.
I mentioned that the universe is not as black and white as you make it seem. Science, by definition, is black and white. Cause and effect. Observations and theories based on other observations, causes, and effects. But I stand by the fact that is not explaining anything. It's merely describing how natural laws are being played out. It doesn't explain why the universe is structured the way it is. We ultimately don't know why things are the way they are through science alone. We just know that things act a certain way in certain situations due to scientific experiments and observations. The argument is there that it's only a matter of time before we get to the bottom of it, but that is a subjective argument just the same as saying science will never get to the bottom of it because God is too big for a microscope (so to speak).
Let me suggest two books for you that I found very relevant for this discussion in the past. As a believer they're both from my side, of course, but you might find them interesting if you can get through them objectively.
The Insanity of God by Nik Ripkin. The author's name is a pseudonym, but the stories he tells are from his actual experiences as a missionary in Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe. Many of the stories defy logic, it's just up to you if you want to believe them.
The other book is Who Made God by Edgar Andrews. Andrews is a respected physicist was the first person to debate Dawkins in a live setting. That debate is worth a listen, too if you have the chance. But the book is a very scientific approach to evidence that there is a God.
"Modern science", and science as actual personal knowledge are obviously two different things... I love science, but despair over modern-science.
If you're suggesting that psychic phenomena(?) are illogical, then what's the basis for that? Surely, if real, these things follow cause & effect like anything else. If modern-science doesn't deal with it - it doesn't mean it's illogical. Modern-science isn't logical.
Logic leads directly to God, so anyone arguing against the existence of God is a religious devotee, not a scientist. They absolutely have no idea what they're talking about, and are in fact being the biggest hypocrites it's possible to be...
This is the whole point of the article right? :)
I note no-one has put forward any substantive refutation of my logic. Nada.
Science says God doesn't exist, but 'random' does. That's illogic on the verge of lunacy...
And the sad indictment of humanity is that no-one ever thinks it through for themselves. (Well, I did, but I was bored.)
:)
I'm not sure you can safely make a objective distinction between "modern" science and what you're calling "science as actual personal knowledge". Science has a standard definition, then we all just add whatever baggage we want to it so that it fits our worldview. If you're delineation is subjective, it doesn't hold any water considering my point of view is different and there are thousands of other points of view different than either of ours.
Psychic phenomena occurrences are illogical according to empirical science, but they're not impossible. This would be a category that researchers would just label as "we're not really sure". That category exists in all major branches of science, so it's not scientific to say that supernatural occurrences are impossible. Illogical, sure. But logic has a dynamic definition that changes with technology, philosophy, theology, and many other "ology"'s. That being said, there is no such thing as a non-modern science that holds all of the logic. There's just your opinion based on what you consider logical based on a definition of science that you have adopted to suit your personal tastes. This is essentially what many people do to varying degrees. The real challenge is to try and push through bias and seriously consider all applicable angles to our life and universe.
There are qualified and degree'd scientists that believe in God. They guy who mapped the human genome believes in God. I would say these believing scientists have found a level playing field with logic and God on the same team if they're that entrenched and didn't throw out supernatural possibilities. Science does not say God doesn't exist.
Christianty says this is the heresy of Manicheeism, to see everything in terms of black and white. I don't know why you say we have two brains, last time I looked I only had one. Take care now.
Hilbert space every possibility of every particle does happen it is not chance we do not believe in it you have no idea what you are talking about