Science is all about the search for answers. Sad is the day that we think we have found all the answers.
It’s too bad. Science rightfully can be an affront to any particular religion that trys to tell you particulars that require faith with no proof, but at least a reasonable percent of scientists are spiritual.
There may be limits, but our current understanding is not advanced enough. The problem is the speed of light. We'll never be able to physically observe the "edges" of the universe because they are all expanding away from us at the speed of light, or perhaps faster.
I agree. Nobody ever said that a person can't be both scientific and religious. If I recall correctly, some of the greatest scientists were religious. You won't see that these days.
Exactly. It’s sad to think we have an abundance of people who think they have all the answers based upon faith in any one particular religion.
When I say limits, I don’t intend to mean limits with any particular physical border. The universe we are presently familiar with has a limit for the speed of light. At present, we’re limted in defining anything about our universe with that in mind.
Science has become dogmatic. Hardly the open ended study of phenomena we wish it was. Example. Fishing stocks in the oceans are not declining only because of over fishing, but the destruction of estuaries that support oceanic life. The Great Food Chain. The dogmatic view is over fishing and estuary destruction continues. You want more examples of religiosity in Science for $ $ $? I know what causes post vaccination autism! And like Watson & Crick, it is founded on known science and no one has investigated. START A THREAD AND LINK ME.
I don't doubt that some science has become dogmatic. People who believe that vaccines cause autism are profoundly dogmatic in their beliefs, just like the flat-Earthers. Yet there is no science that justifies either of these claims, and they are quite selective about their data (in other words, they choose to ignore all data that goes against their hypothesis, and only promote the data that agrees with them.) That is not objective science. Objective science does not have a bias, it is only concerned with the truth. If a hypothesis is proven to be correct, it is a win for science. If a hypothesis is proven to be wrong, then it is also a win. In both scenarios, the truth is uncovered.
I agree to this extent. There is nothing that prevented scientists from being spiritual. It has long been held by catholic monk Gregor Mendal who contributed much to to evolution, and much later accepted by the Catholic Church, that science deals with the physical world and the church with our “souls”. I suppose I have no problem with that. Religion plays an important role in having a community of people who at least say, “in death, we are not alone.” I think it’s “natural” for mankind to make up some answers where science might fail for them to live on after the death of a loved one. After all, the very first person who discovers that a religion is in fact true and a foreverness of bliss is available, would contribute to a mass suicide. Evolution it self depends upon either the correct use of science or some form of benign religion that doesn’t go too far and remains secular.
That is what I mean. Religion should not be taken so literally. It is taken WAY too literally, and people literally think that all these miracles--which cannot be reproduced today--happened long ago, and that we should all just take their word for it.
Dogmatism in any form is problematic. I would like to think that real science remains some what immune by constantly reminding people, “this is what we feel is are the best answer from what we know now.” Then you leave much room to avoid being too dogmatic.
Exactly.,. Nothing wrong with a child or even an adult knowing every word of the of his church teachings as long as they feel it applies to his soul and life after death for them....and no one else. If the church can provide a good model for behavior that matches the mores of the society they live in, have at it. Just don’t knock at my door and tell me yours are better then mine.
Life is always about making choices based on the best evidence you have now. When science decides that doing nothing is much worse then doing something they recommend, we have are more likely to fare better in the long run.
“And like Watson & Crick, it is founded on known science and no one has investigated.” That’s a total contradiction. If it has never been investigated, it’s not science. It’s something else. We have a history of making political decisions that harm people and things then in defense making your claim. Science can tell you how to make nuke power plants and how to keep them safe 100% of the time. We then make political decisions that allow 99.9% efectivness because 100% is prohibitively too expensive. That’s not necessarily science’s fault when an accident occurs. That’s the politics of man. If all you do is wait for 100% approval from science, you’ll never get it and nothing will ever get done. It’s a sure thing that faith has done nothing to advance cilivilizations that wasn’t at least equal to Chance happenings.
lol. Sorry, I've never said anything counter to that post. I think the issue with you has had to do with certain observations you haven't been willing to accept.
@dagosa @LazyPeanurd http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/post-vaccination-autism-a-means-unstudied.554672/
What, you don't think there's a brick wall or a picket fence around the universe? So what do you think is then? I mean, play the white man - don't sneer at my theory when you don't have one of your own? There must be something around it, don't you agree?
