[David Maes]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (Einstein)

Science is atheistic and religion is unscientific.

Science is about truth, religion has to do with meaning.

[dleviwing]

Some claim religion is what teaches us the morals of right and wrong. I suppose one should actually call that “PARENTING”. The only need of religion is --------------I can’t think of any good reason unless you’re a scam artist looking for employment.

[N0B0DY]

One interpretation of "religion" is "to bind" which may be a westernized offshoot of the predated yoga (union), which is what the TOE is partly based upon, unification, no?

[N0B0DY]

I think defining science as truth depends on what your meaning of truth is. If it is a limited truth based on the limits of observation and math, then I guess it is.

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Some claim religion is what teaches us the morals of right and wrong. I suppose one should actually call that “PARENTING”. The only need of religion is --------------I can’t think of any good reason unless you’re a scam artist looking for employment.

Religion strengthens the cohesion of a group and owing to this, it strengthens the chance of individual survival.

Secondly, it makes survive the individual longer.

In bad moments, or moments of misery, people sometimes need something to hold on.
It can mean the difference between life and death.

I would say that a society with only science is bad, and also a society with only religion is bad.

We need science, but science is also ethical neutral.
We need belief, but without science, it's also not enough.

[dleviwing]

DM;
I am always amazed at the ability of the true believers to be totally oblivious to the true nature and purpose of religious organizations. Like any group that establishes a hierarchy of rule, it is just another form of governing through fear of retribution; because of its dogma, this makes it the most dangerous form of rule on the planet; bar none. As long as individuals have choice, there is no problem; remove the choice and all nonbelievers will die.

[David Maes]

I think there always has to be a choice for the individual, for believers and for unbelievers;
radical is ridiculous.

NB: believers are not necessarily religious people, and unbelievers are not necessarily irreligious.

[Unreal Zelta]

The significance of religion might not be seen in science as such, but as a form of enlightenment, I do believe people have the right to exercise them. It seems to me that Dave is somewhat in favor of a totalitarian form of government...

Personally, I also criticise many absurd aspects of religion, but that does not imply that I oppose its existence and or practice.

I agree with DM, the choice is always there, it's a matter of personal willingness and or fear of the consequences that seem to limit our options. Our natural deductive reasoning mechanism seem to play a major part in our choice making procedures.

Did you know there is a major difference between an engineer and a scientist?

Best regards

Zelta

[folla rule]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi folla; I did not intend to sound like I was dismissing you. My point was to show that the term “science” is applied to belief systems as though experimentation had been done to collect empirical evidence. Right now “String Theory” falls in the same category as religion yet Dr. Greene promotes it as science. This type of promotion is what I’m opposed to. Dr. Greene is a “True Believer” – in string theory. If being a true believer causes one to feel they have special rights to redefine the rules of the scientific discipline then I will not sugar coat my response to them. In your case I am just pointing out your naiveté; I agree, that should have had more sugar. I can tell by your posts that you are well educated; just not in the physical sciences. Media outlets don’t always present real science; real science doesn’t sell as well as science fiction. Here on ToeQuest I have attempted to point out what is real science and what is pure media hype. Unfortunately some members are True Believers of the hype. I want the dogma out of science; not more of it added.

Hey up david..... no need to sugar coat on my behalf i'm all growed up now <smile>.. at ease soldier, as you were.

<hmm's>.. you know David, i'm beginning to get a feel for your point of view... what IS to be done with the imaginative sorts who brandish about sweeping statements, ideas and generalising premises that threaten to rock the status quo!

lets burn them for being ridiculous... let us stake them out in the garden and sew their eyelids open so that the crows may feast upon their eyeballs!....

or.... lets listen and consider what they have to say.... the potential or mileage there might be in entertaining new ideas with the possibility of accommodating them... i guess its all a matter of perspective as to what constitutes 'real science' Talking of which, lets see..... what about this fluff n stuff and powder puff you refer to as 'real science'....

your reply was a tad brief so its hard for me to be sure, but are you talking about 'the scientific method'? Isn't that really just like pick n mix sweeties?

I mean one could favour inductive logic, wherein one would infer (she says avoiding the term best guess) probably antecedents or precursors to events from empirical study and observation... little bit of faith creeping into this method i find...

or... one could favour deductive (H-D) logic.... (oooo... doesnt that even sound more scientific) <wriggles like a grub with the excitement of it all>, wherein one would arrive at consequences from an assumed truth ... trouble is those long standing difficulties with hypothetico-deductively confirmed theories pretty much lingering like a bad odour around a public convenience, but you wont hear (or see) me chanting the risk of non sequitur makes this method hopeless.. no siree... u ut <shake her head> i got a lotta lotta faith i do.

OOO i know perhaps one could favour abductive logic? I mean it doesn't do much more than describe relationships without making bold statements as to the definitive correlation... rah rah for post hoc ergo propter hoc!!

wait a cotton picking moment... isn't all this sounding just like superstitions or belief?? If i'm not very much mistaken aren't i proving my original point here???

What's left for me to say... besides DOGMA or DOCTRINE... its all authoritative principles, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, (i.e. horses head and arse masquerading as the absolutely true. I agree lets get the dogma outta debate!! As Lincoln has been quoted “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present”. Science or religion its all semantics


finally, i'd like to thank you for the kind words re my education... i do appreciate being appreciated, but i do wonder as to your concluding this all from a sum total of two posts... surely you need to empirically study me much much more <unlady like grin>


Thanks for the thoughts..
Ellie...

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by folla rule <hmm's>.. you know David, i'm beginning to get a feel for your point of view... what IS to be done with the imaginative sorts who brandish about sweeping statements, ideas and generalising premises that threaten to rock the status quo! lets burn them for being ridiculous... let us stake them out in the garden and sew their eyelids open so that the crows may feast upon their eyeballs!.... or.... lets listen and consider what they have to say.... the potential or mileage there might be in entertaining new ideas with the possibility of accommodating them... i guess its all a matter of perspective as to what constitutes 'real science'

I don't think it is just a matter of perspective. Science is required to be objective and 'perspectives' are subjective ...alto I have been known to get mixed up with things ending in '......ives'

From the Wiki .....Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Scientific methodology is also required to be transparent ... available to anyone .. the full source code.

Originally Posted by folla rule what's more without sounding pedantic.... i only likened 'religious belief' (as distinct from religion) to 'science'... this to me is where, to my naive watching you appear to have made a galactic leap into sci-fi.....

I agree with you, I think Dave missed this

Originally Posted by folla rule finally, i'd like to thank you for the kind words re my education... i do appreciate being appreciated, but i do wonder as to your concluding this all from a sum total of two posts... surely you need to empirically study me much much more Ellie...

Welcome to the forum Ellie, you write very well even tho I am only drawing this conclusion from three posts .... its one more than Dave

cool bananas & keep posting ... greg