Thread: Tell Me What You Think About This Statement

It's possible, albeit stupidly unlikely, that someone could invent a computer based on an entirely wrong, non-scientific understanding of the world. For a much simpler example, consider that the ancient Egyptians produced what we would call electrochemical cells, or batteries. To them though, they worked through some sort of magic.

This is of course just pointless musing on my part. But it makes me wonder: how much has our modern day scientific establishment strayed from experimentalism and "reality-based" science into more magical thinking? Physics and chemistry are too hard for this to happen to them, but what about cosmology? Climate science? Social science? It's more magical as the list goes on.

You're assuming the Egyptians didn't understand how their mechanisms worked simply because they didn't necessarily segregate science and spirituality.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You're assuming the Egyptians didn't understand how their mechanisms worked simply because they didn't necessarily segregate science and spirituality.

I don't think the Egyptians knew about redox chemistry. You can believe that if you want, though. To Omnis Dei, the world is a confusing place where to say a ridiculous thing is to make it real.

I don't know why I bother with you. Could you try to communicate without using that tired ad hominem/strawman tactic? Just once, for fun?

They don't have to call it redox chemistry to know what it is, they obviously knew how the process worked since... they... were... using... it. Prehistoric civilizations weren't just beating each other in the heads with clubs all day. The Egyptian system of arithmetic works the same way as modern calculators.

Originally Posted by Alric

Religion doesn't seek to discover why we are here or how we got there. Religion has a set of beliefs that try to answer those questions but they don't try to discover anything. That is a huge difference. With science people do try to discover things but with religion no one researches or tries to move forward, they only hold onto old out date ways and try to reshape old ways to fit the modern world without creating anything original or new them self.

I should have clarified my statement a little. Both groups have an explanation as to why we are here. Whether you are a scientist or a religious person, you initially come to it trying to understand why you are here, how you got here, how the world got here, etc. This is where the process of discovery starts for both groups.

Some are drawn to religion and yes, just put it in the lap of some creator. But scientists do this too. Right now most of them believe in the "Big Bang Theory" or whatever currently acceptable derivative of this theory there may be. Granted some scientists may be out there working to prove or disprove whatever current theory or hypothesis they may have, while some religious folk simply subscribe to a belief, but some scientists are also just content to subscribe to one theory and leave it at that, while some religious types are always searching. The terms, "spiritual development" and "experimentation" ultimately become synonymous. The goals may be different, but the initial drive to understand is common to both.

Originally Posted by Alric

Science most definitely does not have prophets. It doesn't have anything even remotely resembling a prophet. There are some smart people, but they just get credit for things that they came up with. There is nothing holy or special about them. That is nothing at all similar to someone who is worshiped because they believe they are in direction communication with a god.

Really? If I was to criticize the work of Albert Einstein or Darwin, scientists, being the unbiased and factual based people they are would, not say anything? You and I both know that isn't true.

Scientists feel the same way about Darwin as Christians feel about Jesus. Fanatical scientists would fight and kill to protect Darwin's teachings exactly like fanatical Christians would fight and kill to protect the words of Jesus. Or we could use another prophet from another religion - Mohammad. How many people have been killed by fanatics from that religion?

A prophet, as I was defining him or her, is simply a person, or someone would may even be a little more than human (I accept all possibilities) who is loved and respected by certain groups of people. Their teachings are protected by the same groups of people. This definition applies both to science and religion. There are defenders of Darwin's, "Origin of the Species" just as much as there are those who defend "The Holy Bible" or "The Qur'an."

Originally Posted by Alric

Science also doesn't require 'faith'. There is no faith in science at all. If you take a math or science class there is always mathematical proofs or experimentation done to prove anything you are taught. Nothing is taken for granted and everything proven, that is like the polar opposite of religion and faith.

Really? Have you gone back in time and met a dinosaur? Where you drifting in the void before the Big Bang? In fact, have you done any of the research you believe in yourself? No, you probably haven't. You are accepting the words of others. In order to do this you have to believe they are true. But you have not discovered any of this yourself, have you? How many others do you think have also subscribed to the same teachings? All the energy of that belief ensures that the teachings continue to prove true to everyone out there who subscribes to them. Christians see healing as the hand of God. Scientists see proof in a mathematical equation. But true discoveries, on both sides, are always made by those why question the teachings of their chosen belief system. Think about that.

Originally Posted by Alric

With science we have evidence that prove a belief is right or wrong. Religion has nothing. They just make baseless claims without evidence. To sum up science and religion are not even remotely similar.

I have just given you evidence that they are similar, and may even be the same at their very roots. Different trunks from the same root system. Different branches on the same tree.

Understand that science is primarily determined by what can be perceived through the senses or using equipment designed by those using their limited senses. Religion is intuited outside the senses, through energetic means (sensations, thoughts, feelings) and requires no special equipment, just inner development to perceive these as clearly as a scientist can see a microbe under a microscope. In both cases nothing is visible to the physical eye alone. In both cases whatever is being perceived is real to the one seeing it.
- DreamBliss

Do me a favor and watch this:
The Revelation Of The Pyramids - The Truth - Must Watch!!!! - YouTube
After watching this, try telling me that the Egyptians had no idea what they were doing
Quite a long documentary but it's definitely worth it if you are interested in ancient history, maths and architecture.