Tell Me What You Think About This Statement

[DreamBliss]

I am going to make a statement. I do not make it to offend. My purpose is not to cause dissension. I simply want to make this statement as accurate and powerful as possible, for my own purposes. I have come to the place to write this statement after attempting to read the book, "50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True" by Guy Harrison. My purpose is not to discuss this book. Simply to post this statement based on the realizations I came to after reading some of it. Realizations that I have had in the back of my mind for some time and which only crystallized tonight. I am not subscribed to any belief. I am not for or against anything. I accept the possibility of all things. I remain open to all things, but I remain open to them being right or wrong or remaining unprovable. In this way I can, some day, be free of all beliefs, those I hold on to, those I used to hold on to, those I am in the process of letting go, and those that mankind has thrust upon me. Here then is my statement: The religion of skeptics is science. Science is a system of beliefs, Constantly proved or disproved, Through devices which translate "reality", Into the language of human senses, By those using the very same senses, Many of whom also hold the very same beliefs. In other words scientific beliefs are "facts", Because scientists have made or found, The tools which prove them to be so. Your feedback is appreciated - - DreamBliss

[cmind]

I think you need to relax.

[DeletePlease]

Religion - the belief in a deity Science - lolno Two separate things

[Beefer]

A very nice and well phrased statement indeed. I like it , I also think that I can relate to some of your points. Can you please put it to simple words because I want to see whether I understood it right.

[Marvo]

Prententious, pointless and tiring. No.

[Arra]

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you're right. It's true that you can't use a method to prove the validity of the method itself. But to prove that science works, we don't need to use science, only logic (ignoring Hume's problem). Also, I think any assumptions we make while determining that experimentation works are necessary. We humans cannot function without making the assumption that "the sun will likely rise tomorrow because it has so often in the past." All science as well as human experience is based on that assumption, so even though we don't "know" it to be true, we have no choice but to assume it is and to ground our beliefs on it. If you really had no beliefs, you wouldn't be able to function. You wouldn't believe that the ground was going to hold up your next step.

[DreamBliss]

Religion - the belief in a deity Science - lolno Two separate things The deity of science is the scientific method and the things scientists refer to as scientific facts or laws. You can not prove the validity of scientific methods, facts and laws any more than you can prove the existence of God. Any "proof" scientists provide comes from devices made from current knowledge based on the 5 senses translating data into the language of the human senses. In other words scientists making devices that "prove" scientific methods, facts or laws are no different that religious people making devices that "prove" the existence of a deity. Both "know" what they believe is true, but for scientists it is usually in some tangible form, while the religious only "know" based on intangible experiences and feelings. Religion - the belief in a deity Science - the belief in scientific methods, facts and laws. - DreamBliss

[Alric]

Science isn't a religion, and the scientific method isn't a deity. There isn't even a reason to prove the scientific method, since it is just a logical tool to find answers. It would be like saying you can't prove counting works, because the only way to prove it is by counting something and getting a correct answer and that uses counting itself as proof. Which is just a silly statement. Of course counting and basic addition works and if you need proof it does you count something and find that it does always work.

[Descensus]

The deity of science is the scientific method and the things scientists refer to as scientific facts or laws. Well, no, because 1) there is no "one" scientific method, and 2) a method is not a "being." You can not prove the validity of scientific methods, facts and laws any more than you can prove the existence of God. Any "proof" scientists provide comes from devices made from current knowledge based on the 5 senses translating data into the language of the human senses. Sure you can. If the methods used lead to facts and laws that can accurately predict future phenomena or events (from solar eclipses to what happens when you put a penny in nitric acid), then you can pretty much say you've proved their validity. In other words scientists making devices that "prove" scientific methods, facts or laws are no different that religious people making devices that "prove" the existence of a deity. Again, no. Valid methods, laws, and facts can then be built upon (because of their precision and accuracy to reality) and used to make advances in technology and information about the universe, or certain aspects of it. Religious people have no valid methods to prove the existence of their deity. Both "know" what they believe is true, but for scientists it is usually in some tangible form, while the religious only "know" based on intangible experiences and feelings. Which makes all the difference. Religion - the belief in a deity Science - the belief in scientific methods, facts and laws. - DreamBliss Well the word belief is true for both by definition, though only one can actually be supported.

[DreamBliss]

I have changed my mind. Religion - The Belief In A Deity or Deities. Science - The Belief In Technology Skeptics - The Belief In Logic Religion - Scriptures Scientists - Scientific Methods Skeptics - "Scientific Fact" So a Christian has their Bible and their God just like a Scientist has their Scientific Method and their Technology and a Skeptic has "Scientific Fact" and their Logic. When it comes down to it we all have our deities, and we all have our scriptures, and we all have our beliefs in the accuracy and validity of our deities and scriptures. But the Christian Bible is no more accurate than Darwin's Origin of the Species. We are dependent to some extant on those before us. We have to trust that whatever we have now, improved through technology, is the Truth. We are also dependent on our senses and beliefs. For some of us they become part of our identity, IE someone who refers to themselves as a Christian, Scientist or Skeptic. As we experience the world these beliefs will serve as our filters in how we perceive it. The fact of the matter is when we die we are no longer Christians, Scientists or Skeptics. These are human terms used during the time we experienced life in human bodies. - DreamBliss

[Alric]

You are trying to shove a square peg into a round, and it isn't working. It seems like you came to the decision that science is like religion and so you keep trying to twist things until the data fits in. It doesn't work though, because science and religion are not similar at all. The scientific method isn't anything remotely like scriptures. The scientific is a logical process. You start with a question or observation, you form a hypothesis that answers the question or explains the observation, then you test it. Depending on the result you may arrive at a conclusion or need more testing or need to go back to the start. What your saying doesn't make sense. It is like saying a person who knows how to do addition or subtraction worships math. Hypothesis-experimentation-conclusion isn't some holy phase nor is it sacred. If I say those thing to a scientist they would probably be like, "Yea, so what?" There is no special or magical meaning behind the scientific method.

[Descensus]

Science - The Belief In Technology Skeptics - The Belief In Logic Scientists - Scientific Methods Skeptics - "Scientific Fact" Why are these separated? I don't understand what you're trying to do here. But the Christian Bible is no more accurate than Darwin's Origin of the Species. The Bible says you can breed differently patterned animals by having them breed in front of variously colored sticks or some shit. The Origin of Species, on the other hand, lead to an entirely new view of life that allows certain aspects of biology to make sense. Enough of this equality garbage.

[MadMonkey]

Science and religion are two completely different things. Science is a method of acquiring and organizing data. Religion is basically a set of beliefs someone has pertaining to spirituality. Science isn't a religion but I would say religion can be a science. You can use science to change your beliefs but it is not something you can believe. In my opinion we can not know anything as facts. One of the things lucid dreaming has taught me is that we can not know anything as fact. We can use things like the scientific method to try and have the best guess we can but there is still a chance we are wrong. I think it is unwise to pretend like we know anything %100 sure. We can put our faith in what ever we want to. What really matters are the decisions we make because no matter how sure or unsure we are we will always have to make decisions.

[♥Mark]

Pretty funny, but here's an even better joke: One day someone will come up with an argument for religion that isn't just semantic maneuvering.

[Photolysis]

Well, that was a minute of my life wasted reading this idiotic crap. You can not prove the validity of scientific methods, facts and laws Bullshit, you do it all the time when you use modern technology. Or do you think the computer you're using to read this is powered on magic? But the Christian Bible is no more accurate than Darwin's Origin of the Species. Are you actually aware of what's said in Darwin's book? I'm guessing not, because I've observed your tendency to make stupid statements based on ignorance. Darwin's idea of natural selection plays a key part in modern evolutionary theory. Putting it in the same ballpark as a bunch of badly written and edited Bronze Age myths shows not only your lack of education and intellect, but also your lack of respect and acknowledgement for one of history's greatest scientific minds.

[melanieb]

Well, that was a minute of my life wasted reading this idiotic crap. Bullshit, you do it all the time when you use modern technology. Or do you think the computer you're using to read this is powered on magic? Are you actually aware of what's said in Darwin's book? I'm guessing not, because I've observed your tendency to make stupid statements based on ignorance. Darwin's idea of natural selection plays a key part in modern evolutionary theory. Putting it in the same ballpark as a bunch of badly written and edited Bronze Age myths shows not only your lack of education and intellect, but also your lack of respect and acknowledgement for one of history's greatest scientific minds. I suspect this could be said better without the attack on the OP. Please keep things civil.

[DreamBliss]

Tell me something... If religion and science are not both religions (and notice I have never said they are the same), then why are both methodologies defended by fanatics? Aren't fanatics typically associated with religion? Definition of religion: Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary I'll bet there are plenty of scientists to whom 2 and/or 4 apply. Now let's clarify a few things... With my grouping separately the two 3 line statements I was referring to the group or entity in the first section, and their doctrine or dogma in the second. Now let's examine the similarities between science and religion: Both groups are seeking to discover and explain why we are here and how we got here. Both groups try to tell us the truth about reality. Both groups have "holy" texts, writings that each take to be the truth. Both groups have prophets, those individuals each group holds in high esteem. Both groups have defenders, sometimes fanatical, both groups have detractors, also sometimes fanatical. Both groups have questions to which they seek the answers. Both groups are populated by humans or other sentient beings. Both groups require faith in their teachings. Both groups have ways to prove that their belief is right. Most importantly of all, both groups use the power of belief to create their chosen reality. One last thing I have said before, just because an object is tangible in front of you, something you can interact with, does not mean it is real, or the only definition of reality for that object. We have computers made from one approach for example. But another race, future humans, or sentient beings from another reality could have a computer that is pure energy and floats in the air. It would look like complete magic to us. In other words, to keep it very simple, reality as defined by science is not, and can never be, the only true reality. What you think of as real as proven by current scientific methods you consider to be factual is only one facet of a gem that has an unlimited number of faces. - DreamBliss

[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. Science's facts are actual facts backed with evidence, religion has no evidence. 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. 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. 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.

[Original Poster]

The scientific process does utilize unproven postulates, making it a belief system. For instance, promoters of the scientific method typically believe that the mind cannot affect the result, merely observe it. If it could affect the result, then observation itself would confound results. The scientific method posits that there is an objective reality outside the mind. This is an unsubstantiated belief about reality which cannot be proven using the scientific method since the method itself requires that posit to function. Skepticism is not the same as cynicism regarding far-fetched possibilities. A true skeptic must attach the same caution to common sense they do to the most bizarre statements.

[L4xord]

Hypothesises are rarely proved, experienments constantly support them which in the longrun lead to them being proved. A hypothesis only becomes fact or a law or principle after 1000s of experiments and test. The Principle of Relativity or the Laws of Physics started out as a hypothesis and slowly became fact.

[khh]

Science is belief in something because of evidence for it, religion is belief in something despite evidence against it. With science anyone can postulate a new hypothesis, and if it fits better with reality or has predictions which prove true, it will (after some time) be accepted. With religion you must trust the word of "holy men". They are very different. For instance, promoters of the scientific method typically believe that the mind cannot affect the result, merely observe it. If it could affect the result, then observation itself would confound results. The scientific method posits that there is an objective reality outside the mind. This is an unsubstantiated belief about reality which cannot be proven using the scientific method since the method itself requires that posit to function. Not a good example - there have been studies to test stuff like this. Though science does postulate that any result should be repeatable. This is because without this clause, you can gain no knowledge.

[Original Poster]

Yes but in parentheses the result should be repeatable despite changes in the attitude of the observer. Don't pretend this is not an innate belief regarding the scientific method.

[Raen]

"The difference between science and religion is that the former is always willing to reconsider any of its theories, laws and rules. The catch is that the longer a theory is supported by evidence, the stronger the evidence must be to disprove it. Ask any religious person if they would accept any evidence disproving the existence of his/her god(s) and the answer will always be "No." That is why religion can never be classified as "science" regardless of what name you give to it."

[khh]

Yes but in parentheses the result should be repeatable despite changes in the attitude of the observer. Don't pretend this is not an innate belief regarding the scientific method. Yes, but if someone were able to construct a reproducible experiment showing that results were consistently changed by the attitude of the observer, it would eventually be accepted I think.

[Original Poster]

It's possible but my feeling is that it's so difficult to measure someone's attitude this couldn't be done very easily. And many skeptics would not be able to help themselves but to repeat the experiment with a spirit of challenge.