Why can't science = religion?

In an ideal world, the science method would be as you describe.

But scientists are human like the rest of us, who follow different beliefs and even faiths. As already mentioned one of the greatest scientists (newton) spent more time obsessing over religious scripture than his love of science discovery.

The 'faith' i put forward in this view. Is the faith of ones theory. As theories before they can even be proved or disproven need a huge amount of self will to push through the time and effort to conclusion. And with that the fallacy and failure of human nature ie greed, sometimes self delusion/denial, with what they are pursuing might not/or indeed will have any merit. So again faith comes into play.

 

sheer genius.

how does he do it

 

Then what happened when it comes to the "science" of climate change and how we have verifiable evidence that scientists completely tossed out all objectivity in the name of "the Cause" as they themselves called it.

Scientists do not adopt "Causes".

It is hypocritical to ridicule someone's faith about God with the idea of "scientific objectivity" when its patently clear there is no such thing.

 

Global warming is a fact -and all ideas and simulations about the causes of gobal warming are wrong if they like only to see natural causes without the influence of human beings. The behavior of human beings is the main problem for global warming today. In this context the worst nations on this planet are the USA and China. I would call both nations in this context "lazy", "ignorant" and "agressive".

http://youtu.be/2-OKtqJGaW0

 

What's the half-lifetime of a definition? 10 seconds?

http://youtu.be/RojSSZ3BwIM

 

Global Warming is not a fact. 15 years of temperature studies have shown it. We were already supposed to be venus by now.

Besides I'm willing to trade a few pacific atolls for more arable land in places like the Ukraine, Russia and other nations desperate for good arable land.

 

It was supposed to be hot enough to melt lead by now?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

Global warming is not existing but you like to send people from pacific atolls to Siberia. This sounds maybe reasonable in the ears of lazy, ignorant and agressive people - but this sounds not reasonable in my ears.

http://youtu.be/c_kiJht_oJM

 

Look man, let me explain to you in terms you can understand.

Even if global warming exists just like environmentalists say I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

How is global warming going to make my life in Southern Ohio any worse? What some wierd weather?

Buddy I already deal with tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, floods, what have you. What makes you think any of the that (*)(*)(*)(*) fazes me? None of it.

I get up, I get in my car, I work, I recreate and I go back home.

I have no other worldly concerns other than saving for my future and my pocketbook.

I have problems that so outweigh global warming, that the planet could melt away into oblivion before I give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

I'm not lazy.. I just don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about global warming.

You obviously have too much time on your hands if you have time to sit around and worry about (*)(*)(*)(*)ing climate change.

 

It will need some time for you to learn German.

http://youtu.be/Adg5W4qUcp0

 

The "verifiable evidence" is where?

You're correct, scientists don't adopt causes.

Mixing up someone's faith about God with science is pointless.

 

Not really. Someone who ignores intentionally truth (facts) and someone who doesn't care about the life and the opinion of other people is in a bad conflict - as well in science as well in religion. We are calling the common house of science and religion normally "culture" and the way to help someone to become an encultured human being "education". A Christian never would say "I care a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you are thinking and wether this is right or wrong independent from every fact"

I don't have any idea how I could be able to subsumize an intentionally ignorant and agressive behavior under the expressions "science" and/or "christian religion" - specially in case if problems may be very dangerous. Science is holy for Christians - specially also because science is a servant of truth.

http://youtu.be/zcjLAoEYhBo

 

So if you believe some infinitely dense zero volume "thing" just explodes into the universe, with no idea how it got there or why it went "pop" or what was there before, thats science.

But if you believe God made it happen, then thats faith and religion.

Sounds like there's no difference.

 

No it doesn't. You work on a theist based assumption. An assumption that you have no desire to challenge or question. Science doesn't at this moment hold the answers, but it is constantly challenging itself and previous theories to try to find the truth.

You guys just fill the unanswered with god and that's that.

Science and god are mutually exclusive.

 

Thus, if there is a God then science will never find the answer because God is the one direction that many in science refuse to look towards or acknowlege.

I believe that a true scientist will not exclude a possibility simply because he or she does not wish to find the answer there.

 

There is a huge over respect for scientists on this topic. If go by what posters have said.

These scientists rigidly stick to the method like super geeks using pure logic while uneffected by trivial human emotions.

 

Codswallup!

Science is actively trying to answer the question of the creation of the universe.

The simple fact that theists are now discussing science, is a consequence of science having had proved so much of this idiocy wrong. Now religious types have been forced via science to accept that the whole garden of eden notion is BS. Then the bible simply fell apart.

 

Are you kidding me? Scientists have built a particle shasher in the alps and are trying to find particles never imagined before.

How on earth you can acuse scientists of the very thing that religious types are guilty of.

It's you guys that cling to old documents, only admitting it was not mean litterally, once science has bothered itself to ask questions.

 

There was something before the big bang... all that was absent is the universe as we know it which is the result of the big bang.

 

Who's to say we aren't also. Time is relative and isn't constant. What seem to us to be eons may in fact be just a blip...

 

perhaps 'many' but not all

i disagree.....

for example: to identify just about every miracle that a human being can name as being from "god", then seek how it can happen, then science is defining the miracles of god, to know the god of mankind

I know that 'god' is in fact 'nature' itself

 

i find that many of science hold 'laws' as absolute that are in fact, wrong.

ie.... the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a joke and actually moot, when observing the 1st law.

The reason the very evolution of a living thing, from based elements and energy to a living cell, is not described via math is because the existing frame (paradigm) is wrong.

all ask questions

it is the lack of self reflection that causes many of either discipline to check the facts, combining with the most current knowledge.

For example: plancks constant (h) is wrong and the reason is the combining of entropy to the direction (d/t)

 

And you come out with all this, still believing that there's an omnioptent, omipresent being, which has zero evidence.

Please, stop wasting my time here.

Lets be honest. God was human's first attempt to understand and explain the world around them, it gained credence due to natural occurances such as the northern lights, floods, earth quakes etc... They were wrong and we know that now.

 

not me....

integrity, honesty and the ability to overcome being complacent is about as omipotent as it gets.

for example: newton 'created' the theorem to overcome the ptolemaic idiocracy

and i created the 'name' of da boss (nature itself)

what's the waste, if you are learning that often the complacent of science can be as rude as the morons of beliefs?

mankind created the 'words' to even describe nature (god itself)

that, i can agree on.

and if knowledge evolves over time, then the pinnacle is the math defining the 'trinity' of how 'mass' (elements), energy (light/em) and time, interrelate.

Would you agree that there is a transistion thereof of that 'trinity' that is the long sought big ToE?

Now if you really want to dwell into the esoteric; if there was one idiot that 'created' the theorem to decribe the process of nature, to the letter, as well can define 'good and bad' to the letter within the universal language (math), then who would that prick be?

go into the science section of this forum and read a few pages

read a few threads and see what truth can sustain

but to consider me a religious wingnut is kind of stupid.

 

Way to build the strawman.

Fact is, we dont know what caused the Big Bang.

But by saying 'god' did it, is resorting to the God Of The Gaps, which is a logical fallacy.