|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
The point is that science is no more an arbiter of truth than anything else.
You won't understand this because like Icelander and Ped you're a member of the cult of scientism.
You won't even acknowledge that this is a cult because you're under the illusion that you are somehow more "objective" than other people.
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386436 - 06/27/16 02:42 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I wasn't debating.
That was beyond obvious; yet this is a debate-oriented forum. So why participate by not participating?
Not sure why you are linking irrelevant videos. Can you not speak your own mind?
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23386448 - 06/27/16 02:51 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The point is that science is no more an arbiter of truth than anything else.
That is a flat statement and not a point. 6 years here and you still don't get it. To make a point you would have to demonstrate these other methods of understanding nature.
Name one luxury or hi-tech toy that is not the fruit of science and how it came to be.
Tell us another method that is a path to understanding nature.
Quote:
You won't understand this...
Great non-debate tactic. A personalism does not make your case in any way.
Quote:
You won't even acknowledge that...
There is a real reason that these sorts of useless statements are not allowed.
--------------------
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (06/27/16 03:04 AM)
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Name one luxury or hi-tech toy that is not the fruit of science and how it came to be.
I have the luxury of not having to fear death, knowing that the material world is not that which it appears to be, and thus, there is no reason to think that the death of my physical body will mean the death of me.
That knowledge is a luxury that no scientist I have ever met possesses.
As for hi-tech toys, who gives a fuck? Are you 15?
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23386467 - 06/27/16 03:08 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I asked you to name an alternate method that claimed existed and you failed. No surprise there.
Quote:
As for hi-tech toys, who gives a fuck? Are you 15?
Then how are you communicating to us in the absence of such infantile gadgets?
--------------------
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
|
Post deleted by CosmicJokeReason for deletion: as per user request
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Obviously we all know that some scientists are religious and some are not, but my question pertains to carrying the scientific mindset into all aspects of one's lives. As emotional beings it is not possible to be 100% logical all the time, but why would one not strive for that?
EVEN THE MOST RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST does not take his beliefs into the laboratory with him. What do I mean by that? Most modern religions teach that God can and does occasionally interfere with causation. Things such as fate, meant-to-be-ness and answered prayer require some external manipulation of people and events. Yet, in a lab, the fundamentalist researcher never says that I got such and such results because God willed it; or if he did, his paper would never get published and he would become a laughing stock - even among religious scientists.
Water at a specific pressure ALWAYS boils at the same temperature. Deviations from such denotes a flaw in the methodology or measuring equipment and is not indicative of supernatural forces.
My take is that religious scientists, even great ones, are not applying critical inquiry into their beliefs.
A scientist must also choose to focus their investigations on some field of understanding in order to advance it. In the process, they may adopt a utilitarian acceptance of concepts from some other fields until experimental data sheds doubt on them.
I too favour a 'no stone unturned' approach, but there are so many stones, and so little time, and sometimes I must stand on one to reach another. Religious belief can be a motivational stepping stone in this sense.
Modern scientific understanding may allow (?) some space for the seemingly miraculous to tunnel in at a fundamental level where established theory fades to mystery.
If there is some data with which to pry into one's beliefs and undermine them, then a religious scientists may find themselves in conflict and dedicate attention there. But to dig into this as an outsider, one would need to understand the shape of their beliefs and the data which conflicts with it.
|
MajickMuffin
Edible Cult


Registered: 05/28/14
Posts: 4,345
Loc: North
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
|
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: DisoRDeR]
#23388074 - 06/27/16 03:29 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Hi Disorder, nice to see one actually digging into the topic. My faith in humanity is (partially) restored.
--------------------
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
|
For some religious scientists ignorance is bliss for attaining happiness in their personal lives.
This is the man you want for this thread.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
|
I dunno, I see a lot in common with science & mysticism, mystics just study their own state of consciousness and take it as far down the rabbit hole as they can...... So I see it as science and mysticism versus religion personally.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: CosmicJoke]
#23388164 - 06/27/16 04:07 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
--------------------
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: CosmicJoke]
#23388166 - 06/27/16 04:07 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
scientists don't know what they don't know so agnostic is the right description. atheist suggests a strong position that wastes time, since it attracts argument which is not aligned to any particular branch of science except for godology.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
|
Naw, scientists don't have to be atheist. The vast majority of scientists don't study anything remotely related to religion or the occult.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: badchad]
#23388284 - 06/27/16 04:43 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Scientists study science and the scientific method so..
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
bass head
Oh... Nice.



Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 775
Loc: North American Union
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23388305 - 06/27/16 04:47 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
absolutely not. but their science should not be determined by their belief in God, it should be able to standalone apart from that.
-------------------- Steal your bass right off your head.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,810
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: bass head]
#23388315 - 06/27/16 04:51 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
They don't have to be an atheist but logically they should.
Science and religion contradict severely, especially with the over 4000 religions practiced in modern times.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
Well, it's quite difficult to give credible answers to intangible states of being to answer questions such as "What is love?" in a way that the person asking it would experience that state of being. Language is far easier to use to say "watch out for that car coming at you". I'd say most people wouldn't know what love was if it hit them over the head with a hammer, you really have to dig deeply inwards to find such answers.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
|
religion is to do with tradition, ritual, community and human organisation. i would argue what is significant about the big religions (christianity/islam) is not their 'beliefs' but how they disseminate power through their communities and across the globe
science on the other hand is purely a method of inquiry. sure it has heirachies and power structures but they are not essential to what science is
thus religion and science are categorically different. on the human level in how we relate to one another and organise ourselves, science informs us no more than it tells us which clothes are cool and which arent. science does not tell us how to live or how to behave, we tell eachother that in a way which for the most part is wholly unscientific (and that goes for secular culture as well).. or to put it another way science helps us to do whatever we want to do but it does not tell us what we should be doing.. that falls to culture and ideology
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
|