Science is a tool that can be abused!

[Guest]

Sad indeed that we have that toy the Hubble Space Telescope instead of investing all of that money in broadcasting your inanities to the world. Sad for you. You must hate that science is so popular and successful and your "philosophy" is not. So sad.

Yes it is sad that man has spent money on pictures of the stars instead of feeding people. It is sad that people like you think that pictures of space are more important than answering real questions. The questions - Who am I? For what purpose do I exist? What happens when I die?

Science answers those questions (whence, why and where next) as well as religion, philosophy, or Frank's ramblings.

Science also has and will continue to be a life saver. It also has the potential to be the life ender. But as frameworks go it has shown itself to be considerably more reliable than revelation.

[_Gunnar]

DrW, I have no idea who you are in real life, but I would be surprised if your name is not to be found on any list of "men of science." It is obvious by comparing my posts with yours that my scientific knowledge and acumen pales into insignificance compared to yours. I don't even hold any advanced science degrees of any kind. I am a just curious, semi-intelligent layman trying to learn what I can about the real world and make sense of it by my own, independent reading and study. I may be more scientifically literate than the average layman, but I don't hold a candle to you or any of the others on your list above.

Brothers and sisters we are so blessed today to have with us a member of the Seventy. I am sure the words we will hear will give our spirit a lift so we may be closer to God.

Hey Gunnar, I just rewrote your post to make it clear just who[m] [sic] you worship.

Acknowledging that someone is more knowledgeable than oneself is not equivalent to worship. I don't think DrW is perfect. There has even been a rare occasion or two when I corrected him on something about which he was mistaken, which correction he immediately and humbly acknowledged. You, on the other hand, would rather accuse someone who corrects when you are demonstrably wrong of having an inflated ego than acknowledge your own mistake.

[_The CCC]

Men/women of science are just as subject to all the faults, foibles, mistakes, sins that are common to men/women without science. But it highly unlikely that we are all subject to the same faults, foibles, mistakes, and sins. Therein lies the hope for progress.

Whether a man devotes himself to science or religion or government he will not lose his human failings. Most people reading this would agree but I wish to write it differently to make a point.

I have met many people who were at one time lost in the paradigm of religion. They bought into the false doctrine of heaven and hell, angels and the devil. They bought into the idea that we are judged by God and somehow belonging to a church would save our soul from damnation. They believed the idea that sacred text exist and every word was inspired by God. In this paradigm they embraced the notion of being saved as directed by men. Many of these people became disillusioned with religion at some point in their life and took up science thinking it is not a belief system. What they do not realize is they gave up one paradigm for another. Science indeed has some great facts and has made some nice devices to aid man. But much of science is not fact, it is theory based and is not solid. It is indeed very fluid and by definition must be so. But science is made of men, men who embrace the theory just as men embrace theology. A person who allowed religion to fool them will also allow science to engulf them in a paradigm of science. They will follow the leaders just as they followed the leaders in religion. They will marvel at the institutions of science just as they marveled at the institutions of religion. Just as they embraced religion as fact they will embrace theory as fact. I have seen this a hundred times and the more adamant they are in the defense of science the more lost they are in the paradigm. There is no way of talking them out. Just as there is no way of talking a religious person out of their paradigm.

In my belief system it does not matter if someone is lost in a paradigm. We are here for the experience. Having the world's population in all of these paradigms sure makes this place interesting.

My paradigm is pretty easy to understand. My religion says why God did it, and science tells me how.

Simply belonging to a church will not save me. What I do with what I know will.

Fortunately I've never believed in the inerrancy of any sacred words.

Fortunately I believe God is the one that does the saving.

I have no problem with God, and I am sorry if someone else does.

Do you even know what a theory in science is? It is not fluid, as it doesn't assume the shape of whatever container it is in. It is simply the best understanding we have, so far, for any given observation(fact). IE; As I look out into the night sky I observe stars(Fact). Science tells me what those stars are made of(Theory).

I would say it is a bit more than "nice". Science is what took us out of living in the caves being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

Science is made 'by' men, and not by "'little green men from Mars".
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men

Why the false dichotomy? It is relatively simple to accept both. IE; Some 40% of all American scientists are theists.

In my beliefs we are here to gain a body, and gain experience. The first is just a function of our birth. The second shows us the person we've become.

[_DrW]

My paradigm is pretty easy to understand. My religion says why God did it, and science tells me how.

One hears this mindless aphorism often from religionists who seem incapable of comprehending reality (or are simply unwilling to do so). And it is just that - a truly nonsensical little saying that apparently helps make religionists feel better about the fact that there is no place for their imaginary friend in science.

What science actually says is that there is no evidence whatsoever that any deity (and especially the Mormon Elohim of flesh and bone) was, or indeed could possibly have been, involved in the creation, or continuing function, of the universe.

The equations that are used to understand and model the evolution and functioning of the universe, to a high degree of precision, work perfectly well without the need to postulate the existence of an imaginary friend.

Science is the study of nature and therefore rejects the supernatural, by definition. Religion is nothing more than an unfounded, and expensive, belief in magic.

[Guest]

An interesting thread.

(A little too hard on Franktalk, in my opinion)

Without question, science (in general terms) has had enormous positive impacts on our lives, our health, and our ability to function well into our later years. For this, among other things, we should all be grateful to the countless scientists, past and present, from many different scientific genres, that have dedicated their lives to science so that we, as well as our loved ones, might live a healthier and longer life.

While the great majority of science has brought extreme value, it should be noted that science has also brought some very dangerous and potentially life ending things to our collective table.

Having said that, I have a few questions:

Do individual scientists have personal bias? (Without question - yes)
Do individual scientists - as well as scientific teams - receive pressure and/or influence from their superiors, colleagues, and funding sources? (Without question - yes)

Has science answered the questions that surround a Creator creating the Universe?
Has science sufficiently answered the question of how life began on this planet?
Has science sufficiently answered how this universe came to be and what caused it to begin?

My dear friend, DR W, suggests that "science actually says that there is no evidence whatsoever that any deity was, or indeed could possibly have been, involved in the creation, or continuing function, of the universe."

(Bold mine)

Really!?

Science says nothing of the kind - And they shouldn't. Science should be silent on this front - as science should not project personal beliefs and/or bias from a scientific position.

Now, if an individual scientist would like to offer his/her personal opinion/belief on such a topic, I have no problem with that at all. Speak away.

Just own them - like most of us do - for what they are - personal beliefs/opinion.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Franktalk]

Do you even know what a theory in science is? It is not fluid, as it doesn't assume the shape of whatever container it is in. It is simply the best understanding we have, so far, for any given observation(fact). IE; As I look out into the night sky I observe stars(Fact). Science tells me what those stars are made of(Theory).

Yes there are theories that in all likelihood point to a really correct analysis of the physical world. I will admit to that. But there are some that don't. I used the scales verses feathers debate on dinosaurs as my example. With just a small sampling giant leaps of assumption are made all of the time. Even a refinement to a theory can have dramatic consequences. Take the laws of motion from Newton. When they first came out it appeared that the entire universe was deterministic. This and other discoveries ushered in a period of naturalism. Darwin's theory and Hutton helped keep naturalism growing. Now both Darwin and Hutton were both antirelgious activist. It shows up in their work. Darwin was a racist as well. His theories supported his racist views. I bring this up not to discuss these two men and their theories but to make a point. That point being men are men and we will always allow bias into what ever we do.

In a perfect world we can seek within for some truth and we can seek in the physical world for relationships among the parts. But we don't live in a perfect world. When I write about seeking within I get a bunch of pushback from the science types. They assume anything obtained from within is fabricated nonsense. But they are a product of their imperfect science. A science that has a foundation based on all of the human failings you can imagine. But many of these people do not realize that they exist in a paradigm build over time to destroy anyone who might dare to take an inward path. In a perfect world why would they care, but they do care and will spend hours of their time telling you just how stupid you are as they invite you into their church of science.

[_Maksutov]

Do you even know what a theory in science is? It is not fluid, as it doesn't assume the shape of whatever container it is in. It is simply the best understanding we have, so far, for any given observation(fact). IE; As I look out into the night sky I observe stars(Fact). Science tells me what those stars are made of(Theory).

Yes there are theories that in all likelihood point to a really correct analysis of the physical world. I will admit to that. But there are some that don't. I used the scales verses feathers debate on dinosaurs as my example. With just a small sampling giant leaps of assumption are made all of the time. Even a refinement to a theory can have dramatic consequences. Take the laws of motion from Newton. When they first came out it appeared that the entire universe was deterministic. This and other discoveries ushered in a period of naturalism. Darwin's theory and Hutton helped keep naturalism growing. Now both Darwin and Hutton were both antirelgious activist. It shows up in their work. Darwin was a racist as well. His theories supported his racist views. I bring this up not to discuss these two men and their theories but to make a point. That point being men are men and we will always allow bias into what ever we do.

In a perfect world we can seek within for some truth and we can seek in the physical world for relationships among the parts. But we don't live in a perfect world. When I write about seeking within I get a bunch of pushback from the science types. They assume anything obtained from within is fabricated nonsense. But they are a product of their imperfect science. A science that has a foundation based on all of the human failings you can imagine. But many of these people do not realize that they exist in a paradigm build over time to destroy anyone who might dare to take an inward path. In a perfect world why would they care, but they do care and will spend hours of their time telling you just how stupid you are as they invite you into their church of science.

Your distortions never end, Frank. Science is not religion. Scientists are not priests. Darwin was as racist as the average man of his place and time. Trying to take down Darwin and Einstein with your inner journey pretentions is so laughable, Frank. You still haven't shown me anything from your inner journeys. I can put up an endless amount of data, industries, products, services, medical advances, while you have your feelings.

You do religion a great disservice when you position it in opposition to science. Science has not disproved the existence of God and never will. Science is intrinsically agnostic. You can pretend that this is some great clash of worldviews but I think it's your own personal vendetta against people of greater accomplishments than yourself. You have to enter into the most convoluted fantasy worlds to create a scenario where you are the ultimate authority and can dismiss the actual achievements of thousands of other people. And you can do this with the utmost irony and on the World Wide Web, the creation of particle physicists who needed to share data.

I'm an agnostic. But if I were a religious person I would find your characterizations of religion offensive. You would tell the many Christian and other religious researchers and teachers that their careful scholarship and professionalism is a sham and they are conspirators and cultists because they work with empirical data within the framework of science. You can start by going down to LDS Hospital and telling the surgeons there that they are to stand aside so that some faith healer with a long speech about his inner journeys can perform that cardiac bypass. Do it, Frank.

You imagine a "church of science" because you lack, not only understanding, but imagination and curiosity. That must be your bliss, perfect ignorance.

[Guest]

Delete.

[_The CCC]

My paradigm is pretty easy to understand. My religion says why God did it, and science tells me how.

One hears this mindless aphorism often from religionists who seem incapable of comprehending reality (or are simply unwilling to do so). And it is just that - a truly nonsensical little saying that apparently helps make religionists feel better about the fact that there is no place for their imaginary friend in science.

What science actually says is that there is no evidence whatsoever that any deity (and especially the Mormon Elohim of flesh and bone) was, or indeed could possibly have been, involved in the creation, or continuing function, of the universe.

The equations that are used to understand and model the evolution and functioning of the universe, to a high degree of precision, work perfectly well without the need to postulate the existence of an imaginary friend.

Science is the study of nature and therefore rejects the supernatural, by definition. Religion is nothing more than an unfounded, and expensive, belief in magic.

False dichotomy. Dr. Francis Collins is a theist, Dr. Kenneth Miller is a theist, Dr. Robert Bakker is a theist. All are important evolutionists.

[_spotlight]

That point being men are men and we will always allow bias into what ever we do.

Which is the genius of the scientific method and peer review. It eliminates the bias. How? by bringing in more experimenters that confirm or annul the experiments of others. The results don't lie. The results are observed by anybody even by people with opposing biases.

Inward journeys OTOH are made of %100 personal bias and are not subject to corrective influences from others. In fact as you demonstrate the influence is in the other direction. You attempt to correct others with your assertions about things that you claim to know. This knowledge of yours is nothing more than personal bias.