State Establishment of Religion

Took the words right out of my mouth! see #100

 

Intelligent design assumes the existence of a god that controlled evolution as a tool for creating various life forms.

ID is OF religion. It's in the realm of religion, not the realm of science.

 

You're not saying that "most" scientists aren't behaving as scientists should, but that they ALL do - scientists of all countries, all religious views, etc. I see no justification for accepting what can only be described as a conspiacy of that penetration..

Your argument fails without even questioning your two 'laws". But, there is no way to present your "laws" as so universal and perfect that they stop science dead in its tracks.

 

That statement has no religion in it.

 

This post is rife with total nonsese.

Your 1 and 2 are nonsese in that there is no "mandate" capability in science.

Your 3 is racist and doesn't apply to science. The primary news outlets focused on accuracy have projected what science says.as represented by the CDC, Dr. Fauci, and other experts.

Your 4 is an attempt to paint the world of science as opposed to or degogatory of Christiaity. But, science has nothing to say about god, Christianity or other religions ideas.

I'll stop there as beyond 4 you really go off the rails and I would hope that is clear to evryone.

 

??
A God that has been active in creating life forms is a religious idea.

It certaily has nothing to do with science. One can't create a scientific hypotheis that references the supernatural - which cerrainly includes the existence of a god.

 

I think you're expecting that science would address more than it can possibly address.

Science is not designed such that it can say anything about the supernatural. It is designed to address how processes in our universe work.

The fact that modern science excludes many religious and philosophical ideas isn't opposition. It's a declaration of where modern science isn't applicable.

 

Dismissal and the 'race card', are not logical rebuttals.

My points stand, unaddressed and unrefuted. You have merely ignored the points, and reasserted your beliefs.

'Science' is not a religion. But progressive pseudoscience is. THAT is the theme the OP is addressing, not classical scientific methodology.

You merely reaffirm your faith in the imposter, and cannot differentiate between them.

 

No it isn't, not necessarily. While a God creation is often advocated by religious entities -- though that usually includes an active God watching over people for instance --, it is also hypothesized by strictly scientific minds including atheists like Stephen Hawking and non-atheists like Albert Einstein, et al.

 

I don't know how one could believe there is a god that active, yet disregard the religious implications. Belief in god and religion are too tightly tied to be viewed as separate.

Like all scientists, the two mentioned scientists had lives outside of science. Being a serious scientist does not require being atheist. Conflict arises when Biblical (or other religious) views on how our universe works are allowed to influence what is actually seen. There are large numbers of scientists who are religious, but who do not allow their religion to superscede what they see.

Darwin was deeply religious from youth through the time of his science. But, he didn't allow his religious beliefs to cause him to ignore what he saw.

Einstein was agnostic.

 

Einstein was a Deist.

 

He did call himself agnostic. I'm certainly not an expert on Einstein's religious views. I do believe some of his quotes have been taken out of context. I would think that an agnostic could discuss limitations on what a god could possibly be like if such existed, for example. And, a Deist view is certainly a severe limitation.

His science never refers to the supernatural (including god) in any way.

If he did believe in the existence of a god then he's an example of such a person being able to thoroughly ignore that possibility in his science.

 

This is kind of true, but a bit misleading. Einstein's famous quote as part of his disagreement with quantum mechanics, "God does not play dice" meant exactly what he said and was indicative of his scientific understanding. He saw that the most probable (though not certain) design and origination of the universe was a supernatural omnipotent god. Similar to Hawking, though Hawking was not as convinced -- saw it only as a maybe. What Einstein rejected was the view of a Judaeo-Christian God that shepherded over human activities and meted out rewards and punishments to individuals as he/she/it saw fit or felt. (Oddly, however, he was a well known practicing Jew, so much so that he was on the short list for Israel's first prime minister. He quashed that idea himself telling the Israelis that he would make a terrible prime minister.)

 

That statement had God in it.

So, it includes any religion that has God as a tenet.

 

That quote is clearly misunderstood - and Einsteing clarified the misconception that he was referring to an actual god.

His statement was an argument against quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - which states that you can't know both the speed and location of a particle at the same time. His analogy was that mathmatics (god) doesn't allow for being both right and wrong. He believed that there has to be an underlying physics that explained quantum mechanics and was compatible with his theory of relativity.

That underlying physics has not yet been found, of course. Physicists still use quantum mechanics for the tiny and relativity for the large - two separate theories of nature that so far can't be ratioalized.

 

You seem to be unable to differentiate between a god of a supernatural super intelligent omnipotent being that, say, designed and created the universe, and a God of Judaeo-Christianity, or Islam, or etc. If you refuse to refer to the former as god, so be it -- no skin off my back. But if you say I can't then you are out of line because it is none of your business. If I use god to mean a creator you cannot say I am wrong just because you refuse to accept my definition.

 

Calling science "pseudoscience" makes even less sense than calling your religion a "pseudoreligion".

I know what the OP says. The problem is that you can't defend that.

 

Yes, you can define god in any way you want.

I'm just pointing out that god is a religious concept. Your view may or may not be one of the current popular religions. God is accepted by faith alone and can not be tested or falsified. God is supernatural - beyond our detection.

 

The question I was answering had to do with what Einstein meant by the quote.

People often mistake the quote in question as an indication of Einstein's religious views - his understandingn of god.

I pointed out that Einstein was using god as an analogy and that his comment had nothing at all to do with god or religion.

His comment was an objection to the hard universal truth of mathmatics being so trashed by Heisenberg uncertainty and quantum mechanics - a question that is STILL unanswered and is surely the most serious question in physics. Physicists know how to use quantum mechanics today - but why it works is still not understood.

 

which I have explained the reasons for that extensively in another thread. the answer is very simple, they are both irrational theories.

Oh but he can, proving it on the other hand is another story.

So is atheism, so what?

yeh so is atheism, so what?

false, the word God would not exist if God was not detected by man.

 

LOL!!

Humans have created huge numbers of supernatural gods throughout history.

You can't argue that they all existed AND were detected by man.

 

You have just shown me that you do not have a Phd

Its not necessary to argue your strawman, that they ALL existed, to prove the point. NIce try though.

 

Those are all examples of gods.

You said the word "god" wouldn't exist if man hadn't detected god.

I don't believe you can reconcile your claim with the fact of the huge number and great variety of gods that mankind has worshipped.

The evidence much more strongly indicates mankind's search for some form of ultimate truth.

I don't mean this as an criticism of belief in a specific god. The fact of the many doesn't imply that they are all wrong, obviously.

 

You fail to acknowledge the conditions however, all it takes is '1', OR your ability to prove otherwise.